Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

HASTINGS PIER BILL

STREATHAM PARK CEMETERY BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

London Regional Transport

Mr. Greenway: asked the Secretary of State for Transport how much was lost in the last financial year by London Regional Transport, as a result of fraud; what improvements he expects during the coming year; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): LRT estimates that about £21 million was lost through fraud last year, compared with about £40 million in 1982. This improvement will be further enhanced by LRT's planned investment of £135 million in a new Underground ticketing system which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State approved last week.

Mr. Greenway: Will my hon. Friend accept that when people get away with fraud it means higher fares for

everybody else? Will she congratulate LRT on tackling the problem so much more determinedly than the GLC ever did?(HON. MEMBERS: "Come off it."] Oh yes, there is no doubt about that. Under the GLC £50 million was lost. When will penalty fares come into operation, and will they apply equally to tubes and buses?

Mrs. Chalker: Penalty fares will apply to buses as well as to the Underground when they are introduced, which I hope will be by 1989, when the new Underground ticketing system will be fully in position. I believe that every Administration have sought to tackle fraud, and I am glad that LRT is now having even more success in tackling fraud than was achieved in the past.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Minister consider concessionary schemes for the unemployed and the poor in London, who are perhaps tempted into travelling free on the Underground for the simple reason that they cannot afford the fares?

Mrs. Chalker: I can see no justification for that, whatever the hon. Gentleman might say. As he well knows, fares have to be paid by someone, and the further concessionary fares are extended the greater the burden upon the ratepayer.

Mr. Chapman: I welcome the reduction in what presumably can only be an estimated amount of fraud on LRT, but will my hon. Friend give the House an assurance that LRT will take other initiatives in this matter, including measures to control access to LRT stations?

Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend is right. Part of the new Underground ticketing system requires new entry and exit barriers in the central areas. The new ticketing machines will make it easier for the public to obtain tickets and mean shorter queues. When nobody is on duty, a permission-to-travel ticket will be available giving the name of the station and the time of issue. Those are all measures which will help to reduce fraud and make the system more efficient.

Mr. Snape: What evidence can the Minister offer the House to justify the reduction in the amount of fraudulent travel which she has just outlined to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway)?Is she aware that in Westminster tube station, for example, not a million miles


from here, her brand new, much-vaunted ticket machines are usually emptied by about 8 pm and then switched off, that there are frequently no staff at the station to sell tickets, and that there are frequently no staff at destination stations to collect them? Will she accept that standards of fare collection and attempts to reduce fraud have fallen dramatically since LRT came into being, and, indeed, many passengers are now getting a worse service from LRT than ever they received from the GLC?

Mrs. Chalker: I regret that, unusually for him, the hon. Gentleman is a little muddled. He asked me for evidence, but that evidence came from LRT. As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, LRT has always undertaken regular surveys into the level of fraud. It has carried out such surveys year in, year out, and has found that the current level of fraud has thankfully been reduced from £40 million to about £21 million. However, that figure is still far too high. All the hon. Gentleman's other complaints about the lack of machines working at certain hours and the lack of ticket collection and so on, at Westminster tube station, which I use regularly — he often sees me in the Underground tunnel—will be dealt with by the new ticketing system. I should be glad to explain it to him after Question Time.

Road Maintenance

Mr. Gregory: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what effect the lane rental experiments being carried out by his Department are having on the time taken by contractors to complete major maintenance projects.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): Last year's four lane rental experiments were a marked success. The actual time on site was cut on average by a quarter compared with conventional contracts. This much reduced traffic disruption. Given this, I have decided to use lane rental for a further 12 schemes this year.

Mr. Gregory: In view of the scheme's obvious success, will my right hon. Friend apply it to junction 8 on the M1, so that the same conditions apply?

Mr. Ridley: Yes, Sir. We have decided to invite tenders for junction 8 on the basis of a lane rental scheme with very heavy penalties for being late and very great rewards for being early. But even at this late stage I am looking at ways and means of improving the situation at junction 8, if possible.

Mr. David Marshall: asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has recently discussed road maintenance requirements with the local authority associations.

Mrs. Chalker: My right hon. Friend and I often meet leaders of the local authority associations. Also through the standing committee on highway maintenance and the local transport expenditure group there are regular contacts at official level on maintenance issues.

Mr. Marshall: Will the Minister confirm that although local authorities have spent more on road maintenance than planned for in public expenditure White Papers for several years, road conditions continue to decline? There is ample and clear evidence that the Government are not providing enough rate suport grant for local road maintenance. What steps does she propose to take to remedy the situation?

Mrs. Chalker: It is true that many local authorities have spent more on road maintenance than was envisaged. It is a question not of the amount of money that the Government make available through rate support grant, but of the way in which some of those local authorities have become accustomed to spending it. I am very concerned about the state of many of our roads. I realise that there is an unacceptable backlog and I am doing all that I can, through the Department, to ensure that something is done about it. I have no control over local authorities which do not spend rate support grant on the most necessary items, such as the maintenance of local roads.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Is my hon. Friend aware that a significant proportion of the growing number of cycle accidents is caused by poor road conditions? Will she, in her discussions, bear in mind the needs of cyclists?

Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is why, when we ask for policies and programmes, and hold discussions with local authorities—and I go round the country every year doing that — we specifically ask for those very minor measures which can sometimes make all the difference between a safe and an unsafe ride.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Have not the local authority associations expressed concern about the equalisation of services across the metropolitan counties after their possible abolition? Is the Minister satisfied that there will be adequate power then to enable proper road maintenance to be carried out in the poorer parts of the metropolitan counties?

Mrs. Chalker: As I believe the hon. Gentleman knows, the way in which maintenance is carried out, often by the metropolitan districts within the metropolitan counties, varies widely. I am satisfied that when the resources are paid direct to the metropolitan districts they will carry out much of that basic road maintenance, which is essential for safe riding, more speedily and probably better. My officials are currently engaged in seeing just what needs to be done in different metropolitan districts. Those districts vary, but on the whole they are extremely competent and do the work well.

Mr. Higgins: Has my hon. Friend noticed that maintenance in London includes painting white lines in the middle of a road when perpetual double parking on either side of a road makes it impossible for cars to go anywhere except in the middle?

Mrs. Chalker: My right hon. Friend and I are at one in hating unnecessary lines and the failure to observe parking restrictions. We are concerned about that, and parking restriction problems are being taken up with the London boroughs, the GLC and the metropolitan police.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Since the metropolitan counties act in every instance as co-ordinating and planning authorities, how does the Minister expect them to function as efficiently if those powers are taken from them? How does she imagine that the standard of road maintenance can be kept up when every little area is responsible for its own section?

Mrs. Chalker: A number of metropolitan districts with populations of about 250,000 will much resent the hon. Lady referring to them as "every little area". In those areas


the reviewing of necessary road maintenance is already often done by the metropolitan districts. They might be under the auspices and sometimes subjected to the double administration of the metropolitan counties in deciding what is done and when, but they are able to do the job. I see no reason why, if the money is paid direct to them, they cannot continue to do a good job.

British Rail (Investment)

Mr. Tony Lloyd: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has received recently from British Rail any plans for investment in new railway lines.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): We have received two schemes. We have already approved the proposal for the new Windsor link line in Manchester. We are still considering the Snow Hill tunnel proposal.

Mr. Lloyd: Does the Minister realise how worried people in the north-west are about British Rail's failure to propose a scheme for bringing a rail link to Manchester international airport, particulary when they contrast that failure with the alacrity with which British Rail plans to take a rail link to Stansted airport? What steps does the Minister intend to take within his Department to ensure that British Rail places the Manchester airport rail scheme high on its list of priorities? Does he agree that we are talking not only about transport needs but of economic value to the region?

Mr. Mitchell: Of course I shall consider carefully on its merits any proposal by British Rail for investment in a link line to Manchester airport.

Mr. Coombs: Does my hon. Friend agree that in addition to making the maximum use of resources for new railway lines it is important to maximise the use of existing lines and the provision of new station facilities? Does he look favourably on recommendations from British Rail for park-and-ride facilities on the outskirts of towns such as Swindon, where the movement of population has been from the city centre to the outskirts, thus creating the need for large movements of population into the town centre? Does he agree that British Rail could help the local bus services by providing facilities to enable people to reach the centre of town?

Mr. Mitchell: Park-way stations are a good example of British Rail's management keeping up to date with the moving and changing pattern of customer demand. I commend British Rail for what it has done. Expenditure is not such as to warrant a requirement for ministerial consent, and therefore I am not involved in such schemes.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Is the Minister aware that the anxiety in Greater Manchester is that British Rail is blocking proposals for a link to Manchester international airport because of its fear of competition between the shuttle and the inter-city service? Will he tell British Rail that it would be a great boost to the region to have the rail link and that if it is worried about competition from the shuttle it should improve its passenger services by, for example, issuing timetables when a new service comes into operation and by improving the frequency of trains from Manchester, instead of obstructing plans for the rail link to the airport?

Mr. Mitchell: Whenever British Rail has been challenged by competition it has always fought back

tenaciously and pugnaciously. I am sure that that applies to Manchester services and others. British Rail has tried to give better advance warning of timetable changes, but I agree that not everything has gone as smoothly as British Rail had hoped it would.

Sir Antony Buck: Does my hon. Friend agree that what he has just announced is closely connected to the plans for the electrification of railways? Will he say a word about what has been achieved and about the plan for electrification in future?

Mr. Mitchell: Some 2,356 route miles and 6,215 track miles are now either electrified or in the process of being so this year. That includes the electrification of the line between Colchester and Ipswich, the first electric train on that service having been inaugurated today. I welcome the first stage of the London-Norwich electrification.

Mr. Flannery: While I welcome the investment in new railway lines, which is seriously needed, may I ask the Minister whether he will consider more investment in existing lines, such as the St. Pancras to Sheffield? Is he aware that there are great fears about the service, expressed at an important meeting this weekend, because of its obvious deterioration—no matter what one of the Derbyshire Members says about it?

Mr. Mitchell: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, he has time after time run the hare that there is some threat to that service, and he is surprised to hear an echo from the local electorate because it is worried by the rumours that he has spread. Within the last couple of years HST services have been put on that line and substantial expenditure has been undertaken—part of the £2,000 million that has been spent by British Rail since 1979.

Mr. Adley: Is not the Government's approval of the Windsor link, the east coast line electrification and the East Anglian electrification clear and certain evidence that the Government are supporting the railways? Will my hon. Friend confirm that the investment programme is the biggest for 20 or more years, including the approvals for new stock? Will he be a little less reticent in trumpeting the Government's success?

Mr. Mitchell: I accept my hon. Friend's remarks. Last year we approved all British Rail's submissions for investment, which was probably a record £475 million. My hon. Friend has drawn attention to the Windsor link, and I am amazed that not one of the Labour Manchester Members took the opportunity available to welcome the proposal.

Mr. Snape: Will the Minister now compare like with like on road and rail investment? Does he agree that as long ago as 1976 the Leitch committee recommended that investment in both systems should be treated on their merits and similarly? Is it not blatantly unfair that railways have to justify financially any projects, while for road improvements we depend on that somewhat mystical and certainly mythical system of co-benefit analysis so beloved of the civil servants in the hon. Gentleman's Department?

Mr. Mitchell: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the amount paid in tax by road users exceeds the amount spent on roads. The operations of British Rail are divided between those that are commercially viable—where it


must make commercial decisions on investment wholly on that basis—and those that are often referred to as the social railway network, where we take other considerations into account.

Bypasses

Mr. Nicholas Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Transport how many bypasses around historic towns have now been completed since 1979.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Michael Spicer): We are engaged on a massive bypass programme. Since 1 January 1980, 161 communities have been bypassed, including 44 historic towns. Schemes to bypass another 326 communities, including 97 historic towns, are planned.

Mr. Baker: Is my hon. Friend aware of the benefits of such bypasses to the people and the buildings in historic towns—such as Blandford in my constituency, where a bypass opened recently—and to those wishing to travel around those places? Will he accept my congratulations on that programme and will he ensure that it is extended to other historic towns?

Mr. Spicer: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. There is an upsurge in the building of bypasses, especially those around historic towns.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: I welcome the progress that is being made. Is my hon. Friend aware that much-needed improvements to the Lincoln bypass are going ahead well, with construction appearing to be on schedule? Does he agree that roads which bypass other than historic towns are also important, and will he report on progress on that front, too?

Mr. Spicer: I am glad that the scheme to which my hon. Friend referred is going well. The split between bypasses of historic towns and other areas is reasonably even. The plans show that of 118 communities to be bypassed, 31 are historic towns. We have currently completed 72, of which 24 are historic towns.

Mr. Key: I congratulate the Department's bypass priorities, which, we hope, will give us in Salisbury a chance to look afresh at our coach park problem. Will my hon. Friend bear in mind, however, that this is a particularly sensitive area of policy and that when it is said that there will be a bypass, there should indeed be one? Is he aware that my constituents, who are concerned with the beauty of the countryside, have lately been told, when telephoning the Department's office in Bristol, that the Salisbury bypass may not, after all, happen because of the cost-benefit analysis that is being pursued?

Mr. Spicer: We publish our programmes for bypasses. Thereafter, the decision to build a bypass is subject to the statutory procedures.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Has the Minister seen the Civic Trust assessment, which says that the Government have dealt with only 25 per cent. of the necessary bypasses? Is he satisfied that the Department is producing the results that will save our historic cities and villages?

Mr. Spicer: The progress towards building trunk road schemes in connection with bypasses is now extremely rapid. The figure to which the hon. Lady referred will be out of date in the coming two years.

All-purpose Trunk Roads

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is his latest estimate of the backlog in the programme of necessary reconstruction work on all-purpose trunk roads; and when he expects the programme to be back on course.

Mrs. Chalker: I estimate that at the end of 1984–85 the backlog was the equivalent of about 220 miles of single carriageway. The speed with which we reduce the backlog will depend on the availability of resources and priorities within the overall roads programme.

Mr. Chapman: I appreciate that extra funds have been allocated to the structural maintenance of the all-purpose roads programme, but may I have my hon. Friend's assurance, so far as she is able to give it, that meeting the backlog, which is a priority, will not be done at the expense of cutting funds allocated to the construction of new roads?

Mrs. Chalker: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. The new construction programme, which brings environmental and economic benefits, often relieves the communities concerned in a way which allows the maintenance programmes of other roads to be completed over a slightly longer period. The important factor is to keep vital traffic arteries in good condition. That is the direction in which the priority of renewal and maintenance spending has been going, though it has not been coming from the construction programme.

Dartford Tunnel

Mr. Proctor: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from Essex county council regarding tolls at the Dartford tunnel; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Ridley: The chairman of the County Highways Committee wrote to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, last December thanking her for a quick decision on the tolls increase application made the by joint committee.

Mr. Proctor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable concern in Essex and elsewhere, particularly among industrialists, about the financial regime at the Dartford tunnel now that it is an integral part of the M25? Can he hold out any prospects for a change in the financial regime of the tunnel?

Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend will be aware that Essex and Kent undertook this venture in the first place on the basis of a tolled crossing. In a sense, relief is at hand because it has now become a motorway link and the yield of the tolls is likely to pay off the outstanding debt sometime in the early to mid-1990s, which is more than can be said for some people saddled with tolled crossings.

Mr. Cartwright: In view of the importance of the M25 for traffic in and around London, how can the Secretary of State justify continuing the archaic nonsense of toll collection at Dartford, especially having regard to the heavy burden on those who have to use the tunnel twice a day to get to and from work?

Mr. Ridley: We are building extra toll booths, so there is unlikely to be any delay. As for the heavy burden to which the hon. Gentleman refers, there would a very


heavy burden on taxpayers if tolls throughout the country, or even just at Dartford, were taken on by the taxpayer when others originally undertook to shoulder the burden.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Does my right hon. Friend agree that to get the full benefit of the M25 it is desirable to remove deterrents to its use? I am not against tolls in principle, but does my right hon. Friend consider that the tolls at Dartford are just such a deterrent?

Mr. Ridley: There are two ways in which the Dartford tunnel could restrict use of the M25—the possibility of having to queue to pay the toll and inadequate capacity to carry the traffic under the river. As my hon. Friend knows, we are taking action on both counts. We are building extra toll booths and a consultants' study on whether the capacity of the tunnel is adequate to take likely future traffic is expected very shortly.

North Devon Link Road

Mr. Speller: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will announce his decision on the inquiry into stage 2a of the North Devon link road; when he expects to make a decision on the recently ended stage 2b public inquiry; and if he will make a statement on the extent to which the North Devon road construction programme is on schedule.

Mr. Michael Spicer: We announce decisions following public inquiries into road schemes as soon as possible, and will do so in this case.
My hon. Friend will know that stage 1 of the link road is open to traffic, and I am glad to be able to report that construction work on the Bideford bypass is proceeding ahead of schedule.

Mr. Speller: I thank my hon. Friend for that fairly hopeful reply, but in seeking to progress these decisions will he bear in mind the intolerable stress on the finances of people whose homes, farms and businesses have been under threat for several years? Furthermore, have the dreadful decisions made here and elsewhere in relation to the Okehampton bypass delayed work on the North Devon link and area roads?

Mr. Spicer: I can give a total assurance on the last point. The answer is none at all.
I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern about the North Devon link. We are fully committed to providing that important new road as soon as possible, and we shall be taking it through the necessary statutory procedures as quickly as possible.

Roads Programme

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is the estimated expenditure on the construction and maintenance of the public road system in the United Kingdom in 1985–86.

Mrs. Chalker: About £3,100 million, Sir.

Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister compare that with the estimated £12 billion collected in motor taxation? Would it not be a good idea now to wipe out the £480 million debt on our esturial crossings as a means of improving our industrial efficiency at a stroke?

Mrs. Chalker: The actual debt on esturial crossings is £526 million. I well understand the concern of those who

use the roads, but we must ensure—as we have always ensured, and as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State sought to make clear in answer to an earlier question—that the resources of the things that we build pay off the debts.
As we announced in February 1984, we are spending £33 million on the crossing with which which the hon. Gentleman is most concerned — the Severn bridge —because we believe that it is vital that the road links into south Wales are kept open and maintained. At the same time, we are now in the second stage of the feasibility study on the possibility of a further crossing into and out of south Wales.
In no way has the £33 million expenditure announced more than a year ago been increased. Whatever the hon. Gentleman may say, we have always been committed to putting the Severn bridge back into good order.

Mr. Hayward: How does the figure announced for 1985–86 compare with the figure for 1984–85?

Mrs. Chalker: It is an increase of £36 million in the debt.

Mr. Yeo: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Al2 is increasingly heavily used, partly due to the expansion of Felixstowe dock and partly due to the general prosperity of Norfolk and East Anglia? Can she hold out any hope of further expenditure on improvements to this heavily used road and especially on the construction of a grade separated junction at Capel St. Mary?

Mrs. Chalker: I am well aware of my hon. Friend's concern about the Capel St. Mary junction. As he knows, that matter is under review. Much money is being spent on the Al2, especially around Ipswich, where work on the western bypass is proceeding quickly. What is necessary to be spent in future will be spent. This year's provision for new construction and improvements is £33 million up on last year's construction figures, which were within 0·5 per cent. of the budget allowed.

London Passenger Transport Group

Mr. Snape: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he last chaired a meeting of the London Passenger Transport Group at which fares policy was discussed.

Mr. Ridley: The introduction of the new Capitalcard, and reports on its success, have been on the agenda of the three meetings that I have chaired since July 1984.

Mr. Snape: While chairing that committee, has the Secretary of State received any criticism about the fare increase of up to 50 per cent., for which he has been responsible, since LRT's creation last year? How does it feel to be in charge of the dearest public transport system in any capital city in Europe?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman must get his facts right. The last fare increase determined by the present leadership of the GLC was in May 1983. Since then, prices have increased to March this year by 9·6 per cent., whereas fares have increased by only 9 per cent. Fares are now lower than they were when Ken Livingstone last fixed them.

Mr. Cohen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that under the last round of fare increases—the first under


LRT— short hop fares, which are used especially by women with young children and shoppers, were increased by 25 per cent., while fares for the jet setters who use Heathrow were either reduced or frozen? Will he ensure that the opposite approach is adopted in future and that there is a freeze on those short hop fares?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that when a minimum fare is increased, it is sometimes increased by more than the average. The average London Regional Transport fare increased by 9 per cent. in January. If fares had kept pace with the increase in the cost of living since the GLC last fixed fares in May, the increase would have been 9·6 per cent. by now.

London-Ramsgate (Road Communications)

Mr. Crouch: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what study his Department has made of the implications for the adequacy of road communications between London and Ramsgate of the increase in ferry traffic between that port and the continent; and if he will make a statement.

Mrs. Chalker: Traffic to and from Ramsgate will be taken into account in our current study of the possible need for more capacity on the section of the M2 between junctions 1 and 3. From the M2 to Ramsgate the link is the A299 Thanet way and the A253, for which Kent county council is the highway authority.

Mr. Crouch: Is my hon. Friend aware of the television advertising campaign conducted by the Sally Line which says:
Ramsgate to Dunkirk—the only way to go"?
Is he also aware that that campaign is bound to increase traffic of all sorts on the A299 Thanet way? When will her Department match this initiative and enterprise by the private sector operator, the Sally Line, and adopt this road as a trunk road and develop it as it should be developed —as a dual carriageway road to Europe?

Mrs. Chalker: I think that my hon. Friend knows that we are delighted with the thrusting attitude of the advertising by the Sally Line. I believe that the advertisement goes on after
the only way to go
to say something else, but I do not have the words in front of me.
I am well aware of my hon. Friend's anxiety about the A299 and the A253. We have undertaken to keep the matter under review and to consider the possible need to bring the road into the trunk road network. At present, I am considering what can be done to solve the problems that are caused by a combination of traffic and gradient on those roads. That is the priority for the time being. The matter will be kept under review.

Mr. Soames: Will my hon. Friend consider the likely impact on this route and on others from the Channel ports when the Channel tunnel is completed?

Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend is jumping ahead a little—

Mr. Soames: Thrusting!

Mrs. Chalker: Thrusting ahead, yes. I have no doubt that he is as anxious as anyone to see closer links with Europe, but he knows that potential tenderers have until 31 October this year to respond to the guidelines that my

right hon. Friend issued several weeks ago. I understand that work on that aspect is proceeding very well. However, all road links to the ports, whether they be off the Thanet way or anywhere else, are being looked at closely in the light of the decisions that will be taken.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Commercial Cases (Trials)

Mr. Nicholas Baker: asked the Attorney-General if Her Majesty's Government will bring forward proposals to speed up the trial of substantial commercial cases before the High Court.

The Attorney-General (Sir Michael Havers): The Commercial Court already has a simplified procedure with briefer pleadings and expeditious hearings before experienced judges. The civil justice review which, will be looking at the jurisdictional, procedural and administrative aspects of the main classes of civil business, will be looking closely at the court. In the meantime, the Commercial Court committee has set up a small working party which is considering improvements in procedure.

Mr. Baker: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend agrees that a two-year delay in bringing cases to hearing is quite unacceptable. Will he consider appointing more judges? Will he also consider procedural changes, such as allowing a court to require a preliminary view of a case to be taken and a greater use of written statements so that the preliminary view of a case being seen will encourage the parties to decide the matter at a much earlier stage and so reduce costs?

The Attorney-General: The Commercial Court already offers significant procedural advantages. It is able to deal very quickly with complex and urgent interlocutory matters, using procedures which are not available in the Queen's Bench Division as a whole. There are two reviews in progress. A review is being conducted by the Commercial Court committee, and there is the civil justice review, which will start looking at matters in the spring.

Mr. Ryman: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman any news about the progress of the deliberations of Lord Roskill's committee on commercial frauds?

The Attorney-General: I do not think that that arises out of this question, but in fact I am unable to help the hon. Gentleman.

24-hour Duty Solicitor Scheme

Mr. Dubs: asked the Attorney-General what plans he has to introduce the 24-hour duty solicitor scheme.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): Planning for the 24-hour duty solicitor scheme is the responsibility of the Law Society, which is pressing ahead with this. The Government are committed to an effective scheme, and are doing all they can to assist the society.

Mr. Dubs: Is not the truth that the Government are failing to provide the essential resources necessary to implement the scheme so as to mitigate the worst effects of the custody provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act? Are not the Government reneging on commitments given during the passage of that legislation?

The Solicitor-General: That is not true. Discussions are going on with the Law Society about remuneration in particular. It is quite without justification to say what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Ashby: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that once the Police and Criminal Evidence Act is implemented, the 24-hour duty solicitor scheme may be very necessary? Can he say when it is intended that the various sections of the Act providing for detention for 36 and 96 hours will be put into effect, because they are a necessary ingredient in the prosecution of justice?

The Solicitor-General: The scheduled date to which my hon. Friend refers is 1 January 1986. It is important that there should be an effective scheme, but I remind my hon. Friend that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act clarifies the powers of the police as regards the interests of arrested persons. We intend that there shall be a scheme in effect by then, but it is important to make that point.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Is the Solicitor-General aware that the Law Society is becoming extremely frustrated by the Government's failure to commit the £20 million a year which it appears will be necessary to run the scheme? Will he now commit that money for the running of the scheme, as promised earlier? Will he ensure that under the scheme a detained person has access to a solicitor of his choice rather than to a limited list held by the police and that, where people are detained voluntarily in a police station, their friends and relatives have access to the duty solicitor under the scheme rather than, as is proposed at present, access being limited to the police only in those circumstances?

The Solicitor-General: The last two points are under consideration by my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor. It is important that costs should be considered together with other relevant considerations. As to the resources that will have to be committed to the scheme, it is estimated that it will cost £100,000 to set up the telephone answering service and that the maximum annual cost will be between £500,000 and £750,000, depending upon which option is chosen.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the issue underlying the fragile 24-hour experiment is the broader difficulty of remunerating a private sector profession with standby duties at night-time and into the early hours of the morning? If, as is anticipated, the experiment establishes a need for professional advice that is not being met, what range of alternatives does the Solicitor-General have under active consideration?

The Solicitor-General: We need to be able to consider the results of the three pilot schemes—the two that have been taking place at Kettering and Birmingham and one later this summer at Clerkenwell—before we can have a clear idea as to what practical measures need to be taken.

Barristers (Misconduct)

Mr. Nicholas Brown: asked the Attorney-General if he will introduce legislation to provide for the investigation and adjudication of allegations of misconduct by banisters by a statutory body specifically established for the purpose.

The Attorney-General: No, Sir. The Bar, like all comparable professions, is self-regulatory. There is no

fundamental distinction between its disciplinary procedures, which are founded in the common law, and those of other professions, whether they are based on the common law or on statute. Those procedures are designed to protect the public and the interests of the client.

Mr. Brown: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the existing disciplinary machinery cannot be allowed to function in a blatantly party political manner? Is it not intolerable that a profession dominated by Conservatives should use its own disciplinary machinery to intimidate those banisters who defended striking miners in cases arising out of the recent industrial dispute? Is it not made even more unacceptable because the same committee has taken no action against those banisters who, in similar circumstances, advised the working miners in Nottingham? Is not the legacy of the miners' strike bitter enough without Conservative banisters exacerbating the situation by using the disciplinary machinery in this disgracefully unprofessional way? What action will the Attorney-General take to prevent those excesses?

The Attorney-General: I reject any allegations of political bias. Questions of conduct are matters for the Senate, as the governing body of the profession. The Bar's code of conduct is designed for the protection of the public, and, in particular, the interests of the client. Conduct of the kind about which complaint has been made goes to the heart of that code and is a matter that we are entitled, if not bound, to investigate.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: In view of the disgraceful remarks from the Opposition Front Bench, will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that there is no evidence, with the Bar or with other disciplinary inquiries in other professions, that such bodies are influenced by political considerations?

The Attorney-General: I have never found any evidence of it, and I much regret that the allegation has been made today.

Sir Edward Gardner: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it would be wrong for defence counsel to enter into general agreements about a particular kind of case, how that case should be conducted, whether there should be pleas of guilty or not guilty, what court should be chosen and whether trial should be by magistrates or by judge and jury, when such decisions could create a serious conflict with public interest, conflict with the interests of justice and, in particular, conflict with the interests of a particular defendant?

The Attorney-General: That matter is under consideration by the Bar Council, and in the circumstances it would be wrong for me to comment on it.

Construction Industry (Latent Damage)

Mr. Chapman: asked the Attorney-General what representations he has received from the construction industry following the Lord Chancellor's Law Reform Committee's report on latent damage, Cmnd. 9390.

The Solicitor-General: The Lord Chancellor's Department has received comments from a number of sources. Among those in the construction industry from whom comments have been received were the Building Employers Confederation, the Federation of Master


Builders, the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Association of Consultant Architects, the Association of Consulting Engineers and the Institution of Civil Engineers.

Mr. Chapman: As my hon. and learned Friend will know, many parts of the construction industry are concerned that the Law Reform Committee's report does not deal adequately with the law of liability relating to latent damage in buildings. Will he promise to see representatives of the industry, as I am sure he will agree that it is in the interests of everybody—not just the builders, but the local authorities and the owners and occupiers of buildings— that those latent damage problems are sorted out on a mutual satisfactory basis?

The Solicitor-General: As my hon. Friend knows, responsibility for the civil law, including this part of it, lies with my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor. While not accepting the strictures in my hon. Friend's question about the way in which the Law Reform Committee dealt with the law of liability, and bearing in mind that it was asked to look at the accrual of a right to an action in a case of latent damage, I think that those on behalf of whom he speaks know that they have had a full opportunity to make representations to the Lord Chancellor, but if they want to make further representations, I am sure that my noble Friend will be willing to receive them.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

Publicity and Public Relations

Mr. Hardy: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his estimate of the cost of publicity and public relations concerning the Government's involvement in, and responsibility for, overseas development during 1984–85; and how this compares with costs for similar purposes in 1977–78.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Timothy Raison): Expenditure on public relations and publicity by and on behalf of the Overseas Development Administration in 1984–85 was £152,400 and in 1977–78 £111,000. Those figures exclude staffing costs. In addition, in 1984–85, £106,000 was spent on development education. In 1977–78 the comparable figure was £185,800.

Mr. Hardy: Do not those figures show that the virtues of our aid programme seem to be becoming more apparent than real?

Mr. Raison: On the contrary, I believe that the virtues of our aid programme are both apparent and real. For example, they are extremely well set out in the annual review, which I instituted two years ago and which I think has been widely appreciated.

Mr. Soames: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on those figures, as well as his Department on the work that it has done in that area. However, will he do more to persuade industrialists of the value of that programme to them? His review was much appreciated by industrialists in my constituency, who were pleased to see how much came back to British industry.

Mr. Raison: I appreciate my hon. Friend's remarks. In fact, we started a new service for British business last year. We now have four-monthly reports of new aid

commitments in the pipeline, published in advance through the Export Intelligence Service. That is made available to British business men. We also now have a commercial liaison officer designated within the ODA. I hope that those things will help to improve, if anything, the opportunities for British business that can be found within the aid programme.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Minister agree that the annual review, to which he has just referred, was a somewhat glossy document? Would it not be more appropriate to have a modest presentation reflecting the Government's modest achievements?

Mr. Raison: The presentation of the review and the information in it have been widely appreciated. I think that many people have found it to be of great value.

Nepal (Visit)

Mr. Bowen Wells: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent visit to Nepal by the Minister for Overseas Development.

Mr. Raison: I visited Nepal from 17 to 23 April. I had discussions with Nepalese Ministers and was able to visit many of our aid projects. I found that our aid programme is well directed towards tackling Nepal's most urgent problems and that it is well appreciated. I reaffirmed that Britain planned to continue to make a significant contribution to Nepal's development.

Mr. Wells: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Nepal is one of the poorest countries in the world and that our programme is directed to supporting the poorest in that nation? Will he also tell us more about how he has gone about it?

Mr. Raison: My hon. Friend is right in saying that Nepal is an extremely poor country. Our programme is very much designed to assist its poorest people. We have concentrated especially on the communities in the eastern hills. The schemes on which we have embarked, many of which I saw, cover agriculture, livestock, combating environmental degradation, and the development of re-afforestation and road communications. All these schemes are progressing successfully.

Third World (Investment)

Mr. Deakins: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information is available to him about the extent and role of United Kingdom private investment in the Third world in promoting improved living standards for local people.

Mr. Raison: In 1983 British private financial flows to the developing countries totalled £2·6 billion. Such resource flows can and do produce employment and income in the developing countries and thus improve living standards.

Mr. Deakins: As the primary purpose of private investment must be to make profits for those who undertake that investment from Britain and elsewhere, surely any benefits to local people must be a by-product, unlike aid from Government to Government and aid through voluntary organisations, which offers some guarantee that the aid will reach the people who matter.

Mr. Raison: The hon. Gentleman is wrong about that. Firms which invest will be looking for profits, but their activities will undoubtedly create employment in the countries where the investment is taking place and help to increase prosperity. This is an important part of our programme.

Sir John Page: Does my right hon. Friend agree that private investment often sets a standard in developing countries which helps to drag local investment up to higher standards than it has been able to achieve before?

Mr. Raison: I agree with my hon. Friend. Britain has exceeded consistently the United Nations 1 per cent. target for the total of official and private flows of aid to developing countries. In 1983 we achieved 1·25 per cent.

Chile

Mr. Stuart Holland: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what emergency or other aid his Department is giving in response to the recent earthquake in Chile.

Mr. Raison: Her Majesty's Government have provided £250,000 in emergency assistance since the earthquake in March. That is in addition to our share of the recent contribution by the European Community from its emergency aid budget.

Mr. Holland: The Minister will be aware that £250,000 is a very small sum in relation to the needs. The House will certainly want to monitor this in future, granted that on a previous occasion a field hospital, apparently delivered to the Pinochet Government, was not deployed in a disaster area. Will the Minister also take this opportunity to assure the House that on economic, social and technical grounds, he will now be supporting a major aid programme to Nicaragua and not supporting his right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary in a political blockade of that country, as reported in The Observer yesterday by Hugh O'Shaughnessy?

Mr. Speaker: The question is directed to Chile.

Mr. Raison: If the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) wants to ask questions about Nicaragua, perhaps he will table questions about Nicaragua. As you have said, Mr. Speaker, the question is about Chile.
The aid that we have provided is useful. We shall be concerned to ensure that it is properly used. There is no reason to believe that it will not.

Ethiopia and Sudan

Mr. Tony Lloyd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give his most up-to-date estimate of aggregate food aid needed for Ethiopia and Sudan for 1985.

Mr. Raison: The best estimates available are that Ethiopia will require 1·5 million tonnes and Sudan 1·4 million tonnes of cereals food aid during 1985. Most of this has been delivered or pledged. In response to requests by various Britishvoluntary agencies, I am pleased to announced further assistance totalling over £2 million for victims of the famine in Ethiopia and the Sudan: about half to each. It covers a variety of purposes, including the transport of food, supplementary food, seeds and tools.

Mr. Lloyd: I welcome the Minister's response, but will he confirm that reports are coming out of Ethiopia that there are still massive difficulties in distributing food aid? Will he also confirm that the British Government still regard the provision of lorries as development assistance and therefore will not provide that help, which means that the aid that is given is not as effective as it should be in helping those who are in desperate need?

Mr. Raison: That is a misapprehension. There are great difficulties in operating emergency relief in Ethiopia. Some difficulties arise partly from the civil war; and others are attributable to many other factors. We are doing our best and contributing a great deal. There will be difficulties that will continue into the long term. The most fruitful approach for us will be through the European Community and the World Bank. I am sure that something useful can be worked out.

Mr. Maclennan: Does the Minister recognise that the railway in southern Sudan and—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has tabled question No. 40, which seems to be directed to the same subject.

Mr. Maclennan: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. In fact, I was on the same issue.
Does the Minister accept that there is an urgent need for spare parts and considerable capital investment for the railway in southern Sudan and for transport by road across rough territory in Ethiopia? Are the Government prepared to listen to representations from the aid agencies and to make money available to help them?

Mr. Raison: I told the House that additional money has been made available for exactly those purposes. We have consistently tried to help with supplies, spares, and so on, in the transport sector, and we shall continue to do so. For the railway system, especially in western Sudan, we have provided an expert, who has put forward ideas about how to improve the flow of food to the west of the country.

Football Grounds

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Leon Brittan): With permission Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement. The entire nation has been horrified and appalled at the terrible tragedy at Bradford City football ground on Saturday. I know that the whole House will wish to join together in expressing our deepest sympathy for the families and friends of the dead and of the many who were injured, some of whom remain critically ill.
The fire started just before half-time, at about 3·35 pm, under the floor at one end of the main stand. The stand was an old one made of metal and timber with a bitumen and felt roof, and the fire spread extremely rapidly. There were about 3,000 people in the stand. The majority managed to move down onto the pitch, but a number tried to escape through the exits at the rear and found themselves trapped in a narrow alley between the back of the stand and the wall of the ground. In accordance with long-established practice at sports grounds, the gates were locked to prevent unauthorised spectators from gaining admission. It was there that many people died.
The chief constable of West Yorkshire informed me this morning that 51 people died at the ground. Two more have since died in hospital. A further four people are reported missing and remain unaccounted for. The bodies of most of those who died at the ground have not yet been identified. In addition, over 200 people were injured, of whom 60 are still in hospital. Twenty two policemen were injured, of whom two are in hospital, and three firemen were injured, none of whom is still in hospital.
The cause of the fire has not yet been ascertained, but a team of detectives from the West Yorkshire police, assisted by forensic scientists and members of the West Yorkshire fire brigade, began sifting through the debris as soon as it had been made safe to do so. The police have asked for witnesses to come forward who might be able to give evidence about the possible cause of the fire, and it is essential that members of the public should give every assistance.
I should like to pay tribute to the courage and professionalism of the police and fire services. No one who has seen the television film of the events can doubt that as much as could be done was done to get people out of the stand, and then to deal with the aftermath of the fire. I should also like to express the warmest appreciation for the dedication and skill of the medical and pathological teams, the ambulance service and all the hospital and voluntary agencies who have since been working day and night, treating the injured and consoling the bereaved.
Further, the House will be aware that at Birmingham on the same day many people were injured and subsequently one spectator died as a result of a serious crowd disorder at the match between Birmingham City and Leeds United, arising from violence by groups of fans from both clubs. There were repeated invasions of the pitch, missiles were thrown, and the police were attacked. In all, there were 125 arrests, 96 police officers required medical treatment, of whom two are still in hospital, and over 80 spectators were injured. Some of the injuries were caused when a wall collapsed following a surge in the crowd, and a boy of 15 subsequently died of the injuries he received. All 125 of those arrested have now been

charged with a variety of criminal offences. That is a further example of disgraceful football violence, which illustrates the link between the problem of crowd safety and the problem of crowd control. With regard to this incident, inquiries are also being made by the Football Association, and these must proceed.
Investigations at Bradford are continuing and inquests will be conducted both there and at Birmingham. I shall expect to receive further reports in due course giving the conclusions of the police, forensic and fire brigade inquiries in Bradford and of the police inquiries in Birmingham. But over and above these investigations and hearings, the magnitude of the events demands that urgent steps should immediately be taken to examine what can be done to prevent such incidents. With my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland I have, therefore, asked Mr. Justice Popplewell to chair an inquiry with the following terms of reference:
To inquire, with particular reference to the events at Bradford City and Birmingham football grounds on 11 May, into the operation of the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975; and to recommend what if any further steps should be taken, including any that may be necessary under additional powers, to improve both crowd safety and crowd control at sports grounds.
I understand that Mr. Justice Popplewell will visit Bradford tomorrow.
The inquiry's fundamental task will be to ensure that the demands of safety, on the one hand, and control, on the other, are not only each satisfied in themselves but satisfied compatibly with each other. A subsidiary but important task will be for the inquiry to review what is known as the "Green Guide"—the "Guide to Safety at Sports Grounds"—which provides guidelines for local authorities as to the conditions that they should require of clubs that seek certification under the 1975 Act. I shall ask that the inquiry should proceed with all possible speed, taking account of and supplementing, as necessary, the findings of the current police, forensic service and fire brigade investigations. I shall arrange for the chairman to be assisted by appropriately qualified assessors — for example, from the police and fire services—and to have available such technical advice and support as he requires. He will, of course, be able to make any further factual inquiries into what happened that he thinks necessary. If the chairman thinks it necessary or desirable, I and my right hon. Friend will welcome any interim report or recommendations he wishes to submit.
In addition, and in parallel with the work of the inquiry, I have decided to designate all grounds in the Third and Fourth Divisions of the Football League so that they become subject to the system of safety certification under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975. The effect will be to require such clubs to apply for certificates from the relevant local authority specifying in considerable detail what physical conditions and management practices—including as to fire precautions—must be followed. The Government announced only on 1 April that we should be extending designation to third and fourth division grounds, but starting with those with a record of club violence. It is plain, however, that the time for selective action has passed, and I shall accordingly be discussing with the football authorities immediately how universal designation may be implemented as soon as possible. It will, of course, be for the inquiry to recommend any changes in the present certification procedures or any other steps that should be taken to improve crowd safety and control. But I can see no reason why designating the third and fourth


division clubs or any of the other steps announced on 1 April should wait on its conclusions. It is clearly important that the public should be given all the protection that the existing law allows as quickly as possible, and that any measures to enhance safety and security that can be introduced speedily as a result of the work that has currently been proceeding should be implemented at the earliest possible date.
To ensure that the measures I have announced of a swift inquiry and a new programme of designation do not leave gaps meanwhile in public protection, I am asking chief fire officers immediately to visit uncertificated sports stadia in their areas to advise management on what steps they should take to secure proper standards of crowd safety in their circumstances. They will no doubt wish to discuss, among other matters, the opening and locking of gates at sports grounds. While I imagine such visits will be the more comprehensive if chief fire officers are accompanied by other members of the local authority safety teams, this work will brook no delay and, for that reason, I consider the duty to fall best initially on chief fire officers.
I must stress that the measures announced today are additional to those announced on 1 April after the meeting at 10 Downing street with the football authorities. That programme of measures agreed to combat football hooliganism goes ahead with renewed urgency.
The events at Bradford and Birmingham were in their different ways both tragic and sickening. Nothing will wipe away the memory of that terrible afternoon. But our task now must be to take urgent steps to minimise the chances of recurrence. The measures I have announced today are designed to that end. I will report to the House in due course on their progress and outcome.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: May I first, on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition, offer our profound and heartfelt sympathy to those who were bereaved and fearfully injured in last Saturday's horrifying disaster? It is especially poignant that hundreds of people setting out to enjoy a pleasant spring day, which was, for Bradford City's fans, supposed to be one of celebration as well, should have seen that day end in torment and agony, or not seen that day end at all.
We send our sympathy also to the citizens of Bradford and Lincoln, who have been stricken by these appalling events. I also want to pay tribute to the emergency services —to the fire brigade, the medical staff, hospital workers and the police—and also to the fans and ground staff who sought to help, for their heroism and dedication in this emergency.
The Opposition believe that the Government have made a serious mistake in linking in one statement and in one inquiry the Bradford fire with the violence at Birmingham. The nature of those two events is different, even though some matters are relevant to both. To begin with, it is unfitting that questions on the disaster and on an outbreak of mob violence should be mingled. It creates the most difficult task for you, Mr. Speaker. I shall therefore confine my intervention to the Bradford fire and leave questioning about the Birmingham episode to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell).
With regard to Bradford, I therefore ask the Government to open forthwith a fund for the relief of the victims and their families. Some families may have been left without a breadwinner, and, although the loss of a

loved one can never be compensated for financially, it is right that financial restitution should he made. In the case of those injured, the nature of their injuries may mean years of medical treatment and loss of earning power or educational opportunities. Proper and appropriate compensation should be made available for that.
Further, will the Government be ready to consider the possibility of making legal aid available to those who wish to consider legal action under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957? Is the club's insurance against public liability adequate to meet claims that will surely be made? The Opposition believe that the Government should have ordered a separate public inquiry, presided over by a judge, into the circumstances of the Bradford fire.
There are many questions to be answered, including the discrepant statements about whether Bradford City club had been warned about the need to improve its safety precautions some months ago. The leader of West Yorkshire county council has now published a letter which strongly indicates that such a warning was given. We need to know what the fire precautions were and why massive amounts of combustible litter had been allowed to accumulate under the wooden stand for a considerable period of time. We need to get to the bottom of allegations that arson may have caused the fire. The bereaved and the injured have a right to know the full facts. We also believe that there should be a separate inquiry into safety at football grounds, and at all sports grounds and other places where large numbers of the public gather together.
That inquiry should be empowered to make recommendations. The matters that it should be empowered to consider should include whether the 10,000 lower capacity limit for designation should be reduced, and the use of the Secretary of State's activating powers under the Fire Precautions Act 1971. At present, no football grounds have been designated under the Act. The inquiry should consider meanwhile whether the 10 grounds with wooden stands should close those stands. Equally urgent is the necessity to consider the question of the perimeter fencing-off of spectators from pitches, as there is general agreement that if such fencing had been installed at Bradford the casualty toll would have been even more horrific.
Ought not the Football Association to suspend its order to Luton Town to install a perimeter fence? The subject of the control of egress from grounds must be considered urgently, in view of the disastrous effects of the closing of the exits at Bradford. The nature of the material used for seating as well as stands must be considered, in view of the effect of the plastic seating at Bradford on the spread of the fire.
The ownership of grounds should be considered to see whether burdens can be lifted from the less successful clubs. The funding of football must be examined. There is a glaring disparity between the Government's attitude towards racing compared with football. It is essential both for the Government and for all commercial interests which benefit from their relationship with football to consider their financial obligations to a sport from which they obtain so much revenue and profit but provide so little in the way of return. The nature of these issues is such that an urgent interim report is essential well before the opening of the new football season, so that all possible advance precautionary action can be taken.
I did not think for one moment that I should be coming to the House this afternoon to ask controversial questions.


The reaction of my right hon. Friends and myself is one of astonishment and disbelief that the Government should join these two issues and treat this tragedy in this way. The Government's response to this disaster in setting up this joint inquiry is insensitive and in the worst possible taste. It will be deeply offensive to the bereaved, to the victims, to the stricken cities and to the nation. Let this be clear. The nation has reacted to this terrible disaster with grief. If negligence or complacency allow such a catastrophe to be repeated, the reaction will not be grief. It will be anger.

Mr. Brittan: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) for his expression of regard for the work done by the emergency services, but I think that some of his subsequent remarks do not respond to the mood of the nation or of the House.
As for the right hon. Gentleman's main complaint—that there is to be a single inquiry—some of the points which he suggested should be considered by the inquiry themselves make it clear that safety and control are very much related and that it would be wholly artificial to divorce the two. One is in no sense equating the two incidents, one in which a life was lost and the other in which so many lives were lost, if one says that the inquiry should properly be able to consider both control and safety. That is what the inquiry will be able to do.
The point is best illustrated by one of the matters raised by the right hon. Gentleman, namely, the perimeter fencing. The suggestion has been made, in effect, that perimeter fencing is inconsistent with safety, or goes against safety. Anybody who looks at the green guide will readily see that the designation requirements have to be looked at as a whole. They include the ability to evacuate grounds and stands speedily. Perimeter fencing which did not meet the requirements would not be approved under the safety certificate. There is, therefore, a relationship between safety and control.
I take note of the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion about opening a fund for the relief of the victims. I shall want to consider it in the light of the situation as it develops concerning the needs of everybody who has been affected and the resources available to provide for those needs.
Legal aid will be available in the normal course of events for any eligible person who is able to make out a case for such aid to the legal aid committee.
There is still some uncertainty about the insurance question, and that is being looked into.
With regard to warnings given to the club concerned, I have in my possession the text of letters emanating in 1984 and on 30 April 1985 on that matter. I understand that there may be some dispute whether those letters were received, but there can be little doubt that they were sent.
I can give the right hon. Gentleman some reassurance on the many matters that he mentioned, because when one takes account of some of the forensic points there is not really all that much between us. Almost all of those points fall well within the ambit of Mr. Justice Popplewell's inquiry, which will be extremely comprehensive, as I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree, on mature reflection, when he studies further its terms of reference. In particular, the right hon. Gentleman referred to an interim report, and the House will recall that I specifically

said that it would be open to Mr. Justice Popplewell to make such a report if he thought that it was necessary or appropriate to do so.

Mr. Alex Carlile: May I, together with my right hon. and hon. Friends, join the Home Secretary in expressing our deep sadness and sympathy for those who have suffered as a result of the tragedy on Saturday afternoon at Bradford? It is a terrible sadness that some of those who went to the Valley Parade to celebrate the third division championship should not have returned home at all or should have to wait many months before returning home severely maimed.
May I also join the Home Secretary in expressing our gratitude to the emergency services, the ground staff and the many courageous football fans who joined others in trying to save people in dangerous circumstances?
May I impress upon the Home Secretary the importance of urgently solving the problem of safety, which it is hoped may be solved fairly quickly, where as problems of control have occupied us for many years now and may not be so easy to solve?
Will the Home Secretary give the House his assurance that his welcome decision to bring third and fourth division grounds within the provisions of the Safety of Sports Grounds Act will be extended to other comparable stadia and, above all, that the Government will provide the money to enable those clubs and sporting facilities which cannot afford to bring their facilities up to standard to do so? In doing that, will the Home Secretary bear in mind that Bradford City was a club which gave cheap entry to the unemployed and the disadvantaged

Mr. Speaker: Briefly.

Mr. Carlile: Finally, will the Home Secretary please ensure that the insurance companies will not be allowed to fall back on the position which they expressed this morning, that no compensation will be paid unless negligence is proved? Will he ensure that in this case at least the principle of no fault liability is laid down for those who have suffered?

Mr. Brittan: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his expressions of appreciation to those involved in dealing with these tragic events. He mentioned some particular groups who are worthy of commendation but whom I was unable to mention specifically in my statement.
We shall want to consider the extension of designation beyond the third and fourth division football grounds in the light of the inquiry as it develops.
The House will be familiar with the existence of the Football Grounds Improvement Trust and the Football Trust, which receive some of the "spot the ball" revenue from the Pool Promoters Association. Quite a lot of that money is used to improve football clubs' facilities. For example, we are talking of expenditure at the rate of £7 million a year.
As it happens, before these tragic events occurred a meeting was arranged for this coming Wednesday between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and Lord Aberdare, the chairman of the Football Trust. In discussions on designation I shall be involved with my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport and the Football Trust to see what the financial situation is. I know that my hon. Friend is also considering whether assistance can be given under the urban programme.

Mr. Donald Stewart: May I associate my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) and myself with the expressions of condolence and sympathy of the Home Secretary at this appalling tragedy? On the face of it, it appears to raise again matters such as escape doors, gates and other forms of egress from sports grounds. Will the Home Secretary seek to introduce legislation, or amend existing legislation, so that where such exits exist, whatever the difficulties caused to the corporation or sports ground owning them, they should be available for egress in the event of a disaster?

Mr. Brittan: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said. In response to his last and very substantial point, the House might be interested to know that paragraph 6·14·6 of the green guide clearly states:
All exit gates should be manned at all times while the ground is used by the public so that they can be opened immediately in an emergency.
That condition would normally be applied where there has been designation.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Although it is obviously premature to consider what funding will be necessary to bring safety standards up to an acceptable level, will the Government undertake to ensure that money does not stand in the way of seeing that those standards are reached?

Mr. Brittan: I have already said that the means by which the requirements that will flow from designation are implemented will be discussed with the football authorities.

Mr. Geoff Lawler: May I offer my sincere thanks to all of those hon. Members who have expressed their sympathy following the tragic event on Saturday? I know that my constituents and the people of Bradford will greatly appreciate those expressions of sympathy and will derive some comfort from them. May I thank, in particular, the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Macfarlane), for coming up to Valley Parade so promptly to see the situation at first hand? That prompt reaction was again an expression of the Government's concern, and was much appreciated.
I welcome the appreciation that has been expressed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and other hon. Members for the work of the emergency services. I am sure that they would join with me in paying tribute not only to the emergency services but to members of the Salvation Army, who were there throughout Saturday night, doling out tea and refreshments to those working late at the ground, to the St. John's ambulance men and to the anonymous heroes — many of them young people — who stayed behind at the wall and helped to pull the less able and less agile over it, at great risk of personal injury to themselves. Many of those helpers, indeed, ended up in hospital or suffered from burns.
I am sure that hon. Members will also want to pay tribute to the local community. People opened their doors and provided tea and comfort to the survivors. It is interesting to note that members of that community are of varied origin and that at a time when attention is very much

focused on apparent divisions within it, real community spirit shone in a crisis, showing just how shallow those divisions really are.
I welcome the announcement of an inquiry, and the people of Bradford will also welcome it. If public confidence is to be restored and people are to feel safe at football matches, urgent action must follow upon the report of that inquiry, before the start of the new season. I hope that the Government and the football industry, through the Football Trust, will be prepared to respond to the financial implications of that report.
Obviously, there is great public concern about what would have happened if there had been a fence instead of a low wall along the front. I think that the view of Bradford supporters is that it is all very well hemming in a minority of hooligans, but that at the same time a potential death trap might be created for thousands of decent supporters.
I hope that all the lessons that can be drawn from this incident are learnt and that there does not have to be another disaster for more mistakes to be discovered. I apologise for delaying the House, but may I ask the Government to make money available in the form of an urgent cash injection, through the urban programme, the Sports Council or the Football Trust, so that a stand can be erected as quickly as possible at Bradford City's ground to match the determination and resolve of the people of Bradford to overcome the tragedy?
Thousands of Bradford citizens will want to attend the first home match of the season as their way of paying their respects to the loyal supporters who died on Saturday. To enable them to do so, and to reflect that spirit and resolve, we must see a real and tangible metal phoenix rise out of the terrible ashes that currently lie at Valley Parade.

Mr. Brittan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Lawler) for his expressions of gratitude to and appreciation of those involved in dealing with this tragic event. My hon. Friend mentioned a number of other people in addition to those already mentioned in the House. I fully endorse what he said about them. I should like to take the opportunity to pay a tribute to my hon. Friend for the way in which he assisted over a long period in Bradford. It is an exemplary manifestation of the local leadership which an hon. Member can give on such an occasion.
My hon. Friend expressed anxiety about proposals for perimeter fences. I can assure him, as I did the right hon. Member for Gorton, that there is no question of simply putting up a fence which would create a trap. The arrangements for a ground as a whole will have to be considered, taking into account the nature of the ground, the means of getting out of the stands, the gaps in any fence and the manning of exits. Unless those professionally involved take the view that a perimeter fence adds to safety and security, it will not be approved. Safety and security are related. It is unrealistic to refuse to recognise that important fact.
My hon. Friend asked for assistance to put the Bradford club back on its feet. My hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport is on the Front Bench today and will appreciate the sincere and determined desire in Bradford to revive football there, with all that that means.

Mr. Thomas Torney (Bradford, South): I associate myself with the expressions of sympathy for all the people in Bradford who have lost loved and dear ones and for


those who are suffering in hospital. I associate myself and the people of Bradford with the tributes to the emergency services—to the courage of the police, the fire service and the ambulance personnel, who rescued many people, often at great danger to themselves. I also praise the dedication of the hospital staffs who tended, and are still tending, the injured. The duty of the Government and the House is to the 52 or 53 people who died and to ensure that nothing like this happens again anywhere in the United Kingdom.
I should have preferred a public inquiry, as would the people of Bradford. I hope that there will be a public inquiry, because confidence must be restored. Whatever conclusions the inquiry arrives at for improving safety precautions at football grounds throughout the United Kingdom, I hope that they will be speedily enforced by the Government. Enforcement requires money. The improvements that are necessary in Bradford and elsewhere will cost more money than can be provided by some trust or other. The Prime Minister is in her place. I beg her and the Government to ensure that the Chancellor provides money to implement the necessary safety measures.
May I suggest to the Chancellor some immediate actions which could be taken? Surely a law can be passed, or instructions given, that exit doors are not to be locked. Perhaps some paint-like material can be applied to wooden stands at other grounds which will make the outbreak of fire less likely. Surely we can order the use of sprinkler systems. Perhaps if there had been such a system in Bradford the fire would not have been so bad, because the system operates automatically with heat.
We owe it to those involved in the disaster to find the money. There must be no excuses. The money must be found to make football grounds throughout the United Kingdom safe for our people.

Mr. Brittan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his expressions of sympathy and for his appreciation of those involved in dealing with what happened at Bradford.
Towards the end of my statement I said that I was asking chief fire officers immediately to visit sports stadia which are uncertificated to advise on what should be done right away. I added:
They will no doubt wish to discuss among other matters the opening and locking of gates".
The hon. Gentleman's suggestion about exits is well taken. I am not sure of the validity of what he said about sprinkler systems, but that can be examined on a professional basis.
The inquiry will be comprehensive, and it will be able to supplement, in any way thought appropriate by Mr. Justice Popplewell, the findings of the police and the inquest, which are the main means of investigation, at least in the first instance. Mr. Justice Popplewell will be able to satisfy himself about what occurred and thereby be able to make appropriate recommendations.
I do not think that the House wishes to hear the trust spoken of disparagingly, because it has provided, and is providing, the substantial sum of £7 million a year. The hon. Gentleman asked what would be done to deal with the financial problems. The Prime Minister will be meeting representatives of the trust. When discussing the implications of designation with the football authorities, I shall, of course, discuss that aspect.

Mr. Max Madden: I associate myself and my constituents with all the expressions of sympathy to the relatives and friends of those who died and to those who were seriously injured at Bradford at the weekend. I also pay tribute to all the emergency services.
It is with regret that I have to say that there will be understandable reservations in Bradford about the form of the inquiry which the Home Secretary has announced. He said that the events at Bradford and at Birmingham were tragic and sickening, but different. Many people in Bradford will therefore think that the two incidents should be investigated separately. If the Home Secretary is not prepared to reconsider the form of the inquiry, will he give a clear assurance that it will sit in Bradford and take evidence in public, and that its full report will be published?
Is the Home Secretary satisfied that the terms of reference will enable the inquiry to look into all matters of concern associated with the tragedy? I was pleased to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman's response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). Will he give serious consideration to establishing a fund from which the relatives of those who died and those who were grievously injured may apply for the compensation and help which inevitably will be needed? Will the Home Secretary also urgently consider enabling Bradford City football club to make its ground secure and safe?
I was pleased at the Home Secretary's response to previous requests of that kind. We all recognise that if third and fourth division grounds are to be made safe—indeed, non-league and sporting club grounds also—the clubs will be in desperate need of financial help, because many of them are short of money. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reduce the betting levy tax and to remove VAT from repair work? That would be of some financial help to enable the desperately ill-financed clubs to ensure that their grounds are made safe quickly and effectively so that the tragic events in Bradford on Saturday occur nowhere else in this country, or, indeed in the world.

Mr. Brittan: I shall, of course, draw the hon. Gentleman's tax suggestion to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot say any more about that at this stage.
Obviously, the conduct of the inquiry is a matter for Mr. Justice Popplewell, but there is no question that its findings and report will not be published in full. I regard it as inconceivable that the inquiry will not sit in Bradford. I assure the hon. Gentleman—and I hope that this will be appreciated in Bradford—that there is no question of there being anything other than the fullest examination of what occurred at Bradford.
There is an important part to be played by the police, the fire service and the coroner. Mr. Justice Popplewell will then decide what further inquiries are necessary to supplement the information obtained in order to achieve a full picture of what happened. He will be fully encouraged to do whatever is necessary to secure that.
We are as determined as the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members to ensure that the lessons are learnt, but I repeat that I do not believe that we would be doing any service to the memory of those who died at Bradford if we failed to take comprehensive measures to ensure that those


who go to football grounds are as safe as possible from all hazards. To do that is not to show any disrespect for what occurred at Bradford or to equate it with anything else. It is to recognise the complex nature of the problem and the necessity of providing solutions, as far as we can, to every aspect.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: On behalf of the people of Lincoln, I offer our deepest sympathy to all those who have suffered in this terrible tragedy. Lincoln has the greatest admiration for the heroic efforts of the emergency services in Bradford. In particular, the Lincoln City supporters wish to record their thanks to them.
Such a tragedy must never happen again. I welcome the inquiry, which, above all, must concentrate on the paramount need for safety.

Mr. Brittan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and entirely endorse everything that he has said.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Does the Home Secretary accept that, as a Leeds Member of Parliament, I speak for all its citizens in saying that I am ashamed of the actions of the so-called Leeds fans at Birmingham on Saturday? I regret that their actions should in any way be mingled or bracketed with the bravery and tragedy at Bradford. The two things are separate.
The Government are to act now, quite properly, in the face of what we all saw on Saturday, which was dreadful. Will the Home Secretary explain where the division of responsibility lies between his Department and the Department of the Environment—which, I acknowledge, has an active Minister with responsibility for sport—in monitoring on a day-to-day basis the problems of safety, not only at soccer grounds, but at rugby league and, in some instances, rugby union grounds? We must not wait for another tragedy before we act. We all know of third and fourth division grounds and others where the stands could go up in flames in exactly the same way as the stand at Bradford.

Mr. Brittan: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that there is no comparison between the behaviour at Bradford and that at Birmingham, and I am glad to have the opportunity to confirm that.
I have statutory responsibility for the Act, but its implementation on a general basis is considered closely in discussions not only with my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport but with the football authorities. On the question of the detailed implementation on a place-by-place basis, the responsibility for issuing a certificate lies with the local authority, which takes heed of what the technical and professional experts say, whether they be fire officers or engineers. It also takes into account the green guide produced by the Home Office.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: While welcoming my right hon. and learned Friend's decision to extend designation under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 to all third and fourth division grounds, may I ask whether he agrees with many hon. Members that that will be very expensive and will cost considerably more than the money currently available for ground improvements under the Football Trust?
Will the inquiry under Mr. Justice Popplewell also consider methods of financing and funding ground improvements, especially methods to obtain a greater income from betting and football pools?

Mr. Brittan: I am not sure that the final matter raised by my right hon. and learned Friend comes within the terms of the inquiry, but it is obviously something that it will have to consider.

Mr. Bruce George: In following hon. Members who represented constituents who died, we must be deeply conscious of the fact that, but for the grace of God, any one of us could he making a similar statement, because all our constituencies have sporting grounds with stands which are as inflammable as that which went up in flames on Saturday.
Does the Home Secretary have any idea of how many sporting grounds — whether football, rugby, tennis or anything else — have stands comparable to that at Bradford? Will he reiterate that other sports must take seriously the events of last Saturday?
What is there in the British national character which requires such a catastrophe to force us into waking up to a fact which should have been manifestly obvious to the House and the country before the events of Saturday?

Mr. Brittan: I take note of the hon. Gentleman's last point. I cannot give him the figure for which he asked, not only for football, but for other sports. It is something that will have to be considered. Of course, the legislation is not confined to football, so the inquiry will not be confined to football. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman has raised matters that fall to be considered.

Mr. Marcus Fox: It is right to point out that it is not only the city of Bradford that has suffered grievously. Many people living on the borders of the city also suffered. Indeed, some of my constituents lost their lives or were injured.
We want from my right hon. and learned Friend a categorical assurance that we will do everything in our power to discover the cause of the fire. I have spoken to many of my constituents who were at Bradford, and they expressed deep anxiety that events occurred that should never have occurred, but today is not the occasion to pursue that.
It would be foolish in the extreme to close grounds on the basis of safety regulations, while allowing the violence and hooliganism that is rampant in the sport to continue. The two are closely associated. I welcome the inquiry, and I am sure that it will go into everything that it can consider.

Mr. Brittan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks, particularly his closing remarks. I am sure that he is right. I can give him the categorical assurance that he seeks. We shall certainly do everything that we can to discover the cause of what happened. It is in nobody's interests that anything other than that should happen.

Mr. Peter Snape: I wish at the outset to declare my interest as a director of a fourth division football club.
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that the tragic and harrowing scenes that we saw on Saturday night must never recur in British professional soccer? Will he comment—I regret to have to make this point—on the stories appearing in at least two national newspapers today to the effect that this appalling tragedy was caused by the throwing of a smoke bomb at the football ground?
Will the Home Secretary accept from me that, regrettably, of all sports in Britain, for some reason professional football seems to attract that mindless


minority who care little for the game and who, indeed, appear rarely to watch the game? What plans do the Government have to combat that endemic hooliganism and enable us in Parliament to do something about the civil liberties of millions of people who wish only to go about their business and not to be threatened and assaulted by people masquerading as football fans?
Is the Home Secretary aware, from the point of view of designating sports grounds in the third and fourth divisions, that no clubs in those divisions can at present afford the funds necessary to put their grounds in order under the well-merited and needed provisions of the Act? Is he further aware that unless Government money is forthcoming third and fourth division football clubs in Britain are doomed?
In view of the money that has been taken out of professional football by way of VAT, betting tax and pools levy, it is time for the Government—any Government—to do more to give football clubs some degree of assistance if what was once Britain's national game, a game which we were proud to give to the world, is not to disappear entirely.

Mr. Brittan: I note what the hon. Gentleman said at the end of his remarks, but I urge him to take account of the fact that 75 per cent. of the cost of meeting designation is currently provided, and that is a not inconsiderable amount. However, I have said that I have taken note of the financial points that have been made.
I greatly welcome what the hon. Gentleman said about the mindless minority, which underlined, as many in the House will agree, the inevitable relationship between safety and behaviour and crowd control. The two cannot be divorced.
In answering the hon. Gentleman's question about what is being done, I refer him to the answer that was given in the House on 4 April, when an outline was given of what was agreed between the football authorities and the Government at the Downing street meeting. I refer specifically to the fact that we shall be introducing legislation on the lines of the Scottish legislation in relation to alcohol; that the review of the public order Acts which I shall be giving to the House shortly will contain recommendations relevant to this area; and that I have made clear to magistrates our support for them in following the tough guidelines of the Court of Appeal on football violence. I shall not rehearse all the measures which are on the record, but at this stage remind the hon. Gentleman only of those.
To answer the hon. Gentleman's question about the throwing of a smoke bomb, I am, of course, conscious that that allegation has been made. I was in touch with the chief constable to get the latest picture just before making my statement today. The position is that he does not feel that he as yet knows the cause of the fire, in spite of the various allegations that have been made.

Mr. Gary Waller: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that one of the first victims of this tragic event to be identified was one of my most noted constituents, Mr. Roy Mason, a historian who died of his burns despite the heroic efforts of police and bystanders to extinguish the flames that were engulfing him?
On many occasions when I have visited the ground, the narrow passageways at the back of the ground have caused me concern. I recognise, however, that it is easy to be wise after the event.
Does my right hon. and learned Friend appreciate that this is a personal tragedy for the chairman of Bradford City football club, Mr. Stafford Heginbotham, who has adopted a tough and imaginative approach to the problem of crowd violence to prevent it from coming to Bradford City as it has come to nearby Leeds United, and who has seen this event occur just as the club was reaching the very pinnacle of its success?

Mr. Brittan: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: Is the Secretary of State aware that many of those who were members of the committee which looked into the question of the safety of sports grounds 11 years ago knew that it was a question of cash versus safety, and that it is clear that cash won?
Why does the Department operate the Horserace Betting Levy Board, which channels an 8 per cent. tax from that sport back into improving safety standards at race tracks, whereas football, which pays 42 per cent. by way of tax, relies on a charitable trust? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman ask the Chancellor to allow football to be freed of that tax for a year so that the resultant £212 million may be ploughed back into football to prevent a recurrence of this tragedy? Why, if it is good enough for the sport of kings, is it not good enough for the sport of the working class?

Mr. Brittan: The Chancellor will, of course, have those remarks drawn to his attention, though the hon. Gentleman did not present the analogy completely fairly. Football betting, in the form of pools, and horserace betting are subject to tax. In addition, a levy is payable on betting which is used to finance matters relating to racing. There is no such levy in relation to football. However, in each case there is a means of financing improvements to football, in the one case by a statutory levy, and in the other by a voluntary trust. The question whether the funding is adequate and what should be done about it is a legitimate one, though I do not feel that the hon. Gentleman put the matter entirely fairly in his question.

Mr. Michael Morris: As the representative of the young man who tragically died in Birmingham, I welcome the joint nature of the inquiry. Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that in Northampton we have a wooden football stand and a wooden rugby football stand, and that one of the major stands at the county cricket ground is wooden? Should we not therefore look at the whole aspect of spectators and stands? I hope that the Government will take that on board and consider the financial implications involved.

Mr. Brittan: The question of the material of which stands are made will obviously be central to the inquiry.

Mr. Robin Corbett: May I, on behalf of the thousands of loyal and sensible supporters of Birmingham City and Aston Villa, express the disgust of those supporters and fans at the hooligan behaviour at Birmingham City football ground on Saturday?
Although I do not like the form of the joint inquiry which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has announced, will he confirm that that inquiry will be free


to sit in Birmingham? Will he also consider giving councils power to close football and other sports grounds until such time as their safety standards are up to the necessary limit, in the way local councils can proceed against other businesses and take enforcement action, even if his agreeing to do so would mean delaying the start of the football season?

Mr. Brittan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his expression of disgust at the hooliganism at Birmingham. I share it. The inquiry will certainly be free to sit in Birmingham should it feel that that would be helpful and appropriate.
In answering his final question, I draw the attention of the House to the provisions of the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 and the Fire Precautions Act 1971, both of which allow application to be made to the court in effect to restrict the use of premises should circumstances relating to safety make that desirable.

Sir Hector Monro: The whole world of sport—the Central Council of Physical Recreation, the governing body, and everybody—mourns the events of the weekend. I welcome the measures that my right hon. and learned Friend has announced, particularly the designation of the third and fourth divisions. Will that include the Scottish first and second divisions, which are equally important?
Will my right hon. and learned Friend in response to what other hon. Members have said, consult the Chancellor about the enormous sums taken from sport by way of taxation to see whether further relief can be given so that the Football Ground Improvement Trust, which does an excellent job, can ensure greater safety at grounds before the beginning of next season, so that all sports fans in the United Kingdom can enjoy their sport in safety?

Mr. Brittan: I take note of the points that my hon. Friend has raised from his experience, especially in relation to Scotland. The operation of the Safety of Sports Grounds Act in Scotland was reviewed last year by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland in consultation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland), the Scottish football authorities and other interested bodies. At that time, it was concluded that there was no need to extend designation beyond the premier division, but the position has been kept under review and my right hon. Friend hopes that all aspects of the effectiveness of the Act in Scotland, including future designation policy, will be considered carefully within the ambit of that arrangement.

Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: Is not one of the fundamental problems the fact that measures designed to improve security within sports grounds are likely to run directly counter to measures to improve safety in getting out of grounds? Does the Home Secretary agree that as well as using all possible ingenuity in taking immediate practical measures we must bear in mind that these really just buy time and that much more energy must be devoted to discovering why lawlessness and anti-social behaviour are so rife in the 1980s? Does he agree that none of us should accept that this is some kind of inevitable, malign evolution and that deeper research is needed into the underlying causes?

Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. The underlying factors must be much more profound. He is

equally right to imply, however, that the difficulty of identifying and dealing with those factors in terms of basic social trends is likely to be such that we should he failing in our duty if we did not take such immediate practical measures as can be identified.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the Bradford incident was a tragedy of Aberfan proportions and casts a blight on the entire nation? Does he also accept, however, that the death of one person in a sad, shameful and barbaric episode at Birmingham City is just as sad for the family concerned? Does he agree that those incidents may be linked by mindless acts of hooliganism of the kind that may have occurred at Bradford and certainly occurred at Birmingham City? Is not one of the most important questions to be investigated that of why a national game is becoming a national disgrace?
In this context, is there not a vital part to be played by the magistrates who, week after week, deal with hooligans who have done their worst but often impose very small fines on them? Has not the time come to ask magistrates and judges to look upon the hooligans as the criminals that they are? Is not part of the problem that of ensuring that people have the will and spirit to enforce the law as it already exists?

Mr. Brittan: We must certainly encourage magistrates to use their powers to the full, and I have done that. I am also in touch with the police with a view to giving priority to the bringing of charges which would enable the courts to impose the correct penalties. To be fair to the magistrates, however, difficulty in obtaining evidence is an important part of the problem.
As for a national game becoming a national disgrace, I yield to no one in my disgust of and abhorrence for those who make that seem to be so. Nevertheless, for the vast majority of people, both players and spectators, the game is still a perfectly decent and honourable pursuit.

Mr. Roland Boyes: May I draw the Home Secretary's attention to early-day motion 461, which calls for a reduction in the pools betting tax? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that Mr. Jack Dunnett, president of the Football League and a former Member of Parliament, has calculated that a reduction of 0·5 per cent. would bring in £1 million? May I also associate myself with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) as vice-chairman of Hartlepool United and point out that the chairman, Mr. John Smart, would very much like to replace the wooden stand? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware, however, that a reduction of a few percentage points in the betting levy would not compensate for the amount of work that needs to be done at football clubs? I welcome the inquiry at Bradford City, but does the Home Secretary agree that it is not inquiries but cash that is needed to improve the football grounds of this country?

Mr. Brittan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to the early-day motion, which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will not have failed to notice.

Mr. John Carlisle: May I endorse the comments of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) about the Football Association's


recommendation for a perimeter fence around the Luton football ground? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that in the light of the recent trouble such a recommendation is nonsense, and will he ask the Football Association to withdraw its instruction?
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there is some correlation between hooliganism and safety? Does he agree that, but for hooliganism, the doors would not have been locked, more fire extinguishers might have been available and there would be no need to fence pitches? Will he spare no effort in introducing measures to correct and deter the hooligans so that once again the game can be played and watched in peace?

Mr. Brittan: I agree with the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, but I shall not be asking the Football Association to withdraw its recommendation, because such recommendations are not absolute. The green guide makes it clear that the perimeter fence is desirable but that it must be considered in the context of security and safety as a whole, and in the context of arrangements for exits from the ground and for getting through the fence in times of emergency.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: The Home Secretary is right to emphasise, as he has done on previous occasions, the need to consider perimeter fences in the broader context of safety generally, but in seeking to extend crowd safety measures to third and fourth division grounds will he ensure that there is also proper examination of the first division grounds at Manchester and Liverpool, for example, where it takes a considerable time to clear the crowd at the end of the game in the normal way? Does he agree that in an emergency or in a disaster in which emergency services need to come in we must have a guarantee that that aspect has been adequately considered?
Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, having put so much emphasis on control, there is now great concern about whether sufficient attention has been given to the crowd safety aspect?
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman also agree—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be brief.

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Finally, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that all these investigations will be irrelevant unless sufficient money can be put back into the game to ensure that the necessary improvements are carried out?

Mr. Brittan: On the new point made by the hon. Gentleman, I entirely agree to the extent that it would be thoroughly wrong if the anxiety naturally being expressed about third and fourth division grounds and other non-designated grounds were to detract from the effort to ensure that proper arrangements operate at designated grounds.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Having had to deal with the no less terrible aftermath at Ibrox, may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to take seriously the point made by the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) about problems of liaison between the Department of the Environment and the Home

Office and local authorities? Will he also take seriously the question of money and consider whether arrangements can be made analogous with those in the racing industry?
Finally, is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that a number of police officers plunged into the fire to pull out fans who in other circumstances would have been pelting them with rocks? Is he aware that the police have had more than enough casualties as a result of football games and that they look to his new arrangements for public order to give a chief officer the power to ban a match if he believes that it would constitute a threat to public order?

Mr. Brittan: My hon. Friend has considerable experience in this area, having had to deal with the aftermath of the Ibrox disaster, and I note his comments.
As for relations between the two Departments and the football authorities, I think that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, who has responsibility for sport, would agree, as would the football authorities, that we try to keep in close touch. As for the public order review, I shall be announcing to the House very shortly the conclusions that I have reached, which certainly include recommendations relevant to football safety and security.

Mr. Tony Banks: This has been the most tragic football season that I can remember in more than 30 years as a regular football supporter. I welcome the Home Secretary's statement about designating third and fourth division grounds. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that this will cost tens of millions of pounds and that, despite the grants available, it could force a number of professional football clubs out of business? Surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman has heard enough from the Opposition to realise that what is really needed is an inquiry into how to get more money into the game to carry out the necessary crowd and ground safety measures. Will the Home Secretary ask his hon. Friends to set up an inquiry into how to raise this additional finance? Will he investigate the possibility of soft loans or grants from the Government being made for ground improvements? Will he consider dropping VAT and police charges? These are all measures which could put money back into the game. That is sadly needed, because, in the end, money counts, not pious thoughts.

Mr. Brittan: I note the hon. Gentleman's suggestions. I am not disregarding them, but it is not just a question of money. The hon. Gentleman would be greatly mistaken if he denigrated or played down the valuable part that can be played in deciding exactly what is to be done. Certainly, money alone will not solve the hooliganism aspect.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Will my right hon. and learned Friend issue strict instructions to all football grounds, cinemas and all other places of entertainment that they should never again lock emergency exits? They should remind themselves that it does not matter if a few people come in without paying. What matters is that the majority of people who want to get out of the premises should be able to do so.

Mr. Brittan: The problem would not arise if the exits were manned. I note my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I speak as a life-long soccer supporter. I think that no hon. Member would cavil at the earnings of soccer players. Those who have followed the game for a number of years will note


that violence on and off the field began when big bonuses were given for winning. Would it not be right to examine this aspect in the inquiry? Is it not worth considering imposing a levy on transfer fees, because high transfer fees add to the financial tensions in the game? That measure would be helpful.

Mr. Brittan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those further suggestions.

Mr. Denis Howell: It is understandable that most of the questions have been concerned with the great tragedy at Bradford, but it would be unworthy of the House if hon. Members did not spend a little time on the serious law breaking at St. Andrew's on Saturday, which I witnessed. On that occasion, 96 policemen were injured and at least 1,500 people were on the pitch making a deliberate assault on the peace of the realm and the good order of our society—a serious situation which one never thought one would see in British sport. I therefore ask the Home Secretary to consider some matters arising from that incident.
The police were grossly outnumbered by between 600 and 700 law breakers on each side. The police deserve the highest praise for keeping the opposing armies apart and for preventing a general conflagration. We must ensure that two sets of sportsmen are never allowed again to create a situation —

Mr. Brittan: They were not sportsmen.

Mr. Howell: So-called sportsmen. Two separate and repeated baton charges by the police were required at both ends of the ground simultaneously over a period of 35 minutes. That was the extent of the disorder that occurred in Birmingham on Saturday, which I had the misfortune to witness, along with many other decent people, who were horribly sickened by it all.
Will the Home Secretary consider the concerted action by some of these league troublemakers, which was well planned and known in advance? There was excellent cooperation between the Leeds and the West Midlands police forces, but that was not enough to deal with the problem. We must ensure that, in such circumstances, people bent on disorder are not allowed to travel this country to break the law. I hope that the inquiry will take account of that point.
My right hon. Friends and I are concerned about the fact that there is to be only one inquiry. The Home Secretary is wrong to limit the terms of reference to the Bradford and Birmingham occurrences. [Interruption.] The terms of reference of the inquiry refer to Bradford City and Birmingham City football grounds, unless the terms have been changed since I received a copy. During the past two months there have been similar incidents on the Notes County, Luton and Chelsea grounds. Will the inquiry take all of those disorders into account, as it should, although they are not within its terms or reference?
The right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement did not refer to the Prime Minister's ministerial committee. I hope that that committee has not been superseded. How does the Home Secretary see the relationship between the two inquiries?
In view of the serious issues of law and order and public safety, how long will it be before Mr. Justice Popplewell reports? This is of the greatest importance if Mr. Justice

Popplewell's recommendations, the implementation of which are bound to be costly, are to be put into effect in time for the beginning of the next football season.
Like the Scarman inquiry, will the Popplewell inquiry have available to it specialist advisers to consider the questions that need to be examined including how advance information and intelligence are obtained, the use to which they are put, how these incidents are exploited and how they can be prevented. Most importantly, will Mr. Justice Popplewell examine the deeper social significance of an occasion when so many hundreds of people go to a game bent on trouble? Will he consider why these difficulties persist in arising in our society?
Will the Government again look at the Chester committee's report, which recommended the creation of a football levy board? This is essential. The Home Secretary has said that the trust provides 75 per cent. of the cost of designation, but that is inadequate in view of the cost of the major structural alterations that will be required.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to perimeter fencing. There is a dilemma between ensuring that those whom one does not want to be on the pitch are kept off and allowing thousands of people to use the pitch in an emergency as the only reasonable point of evacuation. Some of the gates in some perimeter fences do not match the requirements. The right hon. and learned Gentleman probably realises that and will do something about it.
Finally—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Howell: These are very important matters of law and order. They are distinct from questions of safety, and they justify our view that there should have been two statements.
Finally, will the Home Secretary convey our concern to the football authorities? Will he ask them to consider whether, where necessary, the kick-off for important matches should be in the morning, and whether clubs whose travelling supporters have bad records should have all-ticket away matches? Most importantly, will he ensure that the licences are withdrawn from those proprietors of minibuses and coaches carrying football supporters who are seen—I understand that this happened on Saturday — to stop at supermarkets and pubs to load up with drinks?

Mr. Brittan: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the announcement that has been made about the Government's notices of intentions.
I take note of what the right hon. Gentleman said about the Chester committee's recommendations.
The most significant points made by the right hon. Gentleman relates to the events at Birmingham. He was right to draw attention in a very vivid way, in his accurate account of events, to the magnitude and horror of what occurred there.
As for the right hon. Gentleman's comments on the announcement, if he has time to look more closely at my statement he will see that the terms of reference of the inquiry are wider than he perhaps realised. Although the inquiry is invited to consider matters with particular reference to the events at Bradford City and Birmingham, that is not all that it is entitled to do. It is invited to look at the matter very much more broadly.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the inquiry having technical assistance. At a later stage in my statement I said:
I shall arrange for the chairman to be assisted by appropriately qualified assessors … and to have available such technical advice and support as he requires.
As for the relationship between this inquiry and the measures agreed between the football authorities and the Government at No. 10 Downing street, I stressed towards the conclusion of my statement that the measures announced were
additional to those announced on 1 April after the meeting at No.10 Downing street with the football authorities
and that the programme of measures agreed there must go ahead with renewed urgency.

British Aerospace

The Minister for Information Technology (Mr. Geoffrey Pattie): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the outcome of the joint offer of shares in British Aerospace by the Government and the company.
Approximately 264,000 applications were received from the general public, excluding institutional priority applications, for a total of approximately 790 million ordinary shares.
Preferential applications were received from shareholders for approximately 23 million shares and from employees for approximately 3 million shares. All such valid applications will be allocated in full.
Valid applications from the general public for up to 20,000 shares will be allocated a minimum of 100 shares and a maximum of 275 shares, depending on the number of shares applied for. No allocation will be made in respect of public applications for more than 20,000 shares. On this basis, allocations will be made to some 260,000 applicants for a total of some 40 million shares.
As announced on 1 May, approximately 80·8 million shares, 55 per cent. of the total offered shares, have been allocated to institutional priority applicants.
It is expected that dealings in renounceable letters of acceptance in respect of the offered shares will commence tomorrow.

Mr. John Smith: Why is the language of the Minister's statement so contorted and convoluted that it is not possible to discover from it the amount that was raised in the sale? Was not the amount £550 million, and did not 55 per cent. of that go to the preferential institutions, with apparently only 2 per cent. finding its way to the employees, despite the Government's often-professed intention that shares should go to employees?
Are the Government somehow ashamed to reveal the total amount raised in the sale because of the increasing public perception that this is an exercise in selling off the furniture to pay the rent—that the money goes into the maw of the Treasury and is squandered by the Government while the public lose the prospect of future profits from a shareholding?
Have not the Government yet realised that they have finally betrayed the promise which they gave the House of Commons during the passage of the legislation that they would retain 25 per cent. of the shareholding?

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Norman Tebbit): Not again.

Mr. Smith: The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry shakes his head and says, "Not again." It is not surprising that the House of Commons should remind Ministers about their breaches of promises to the House. We shall continue to remind the Government that they gave a solemn undertaking to retain 25 per cent. of the shareholding to preserve the British national interest and that they have evacuated and abandoned that commitment.

Mr. Pattie: On that last point, the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked a similar question on 1 May. The answer that he was given then, he will not be surprised to know, has not changed since. The undertaking given by the Government in 1981 was to safeguard the national


interest. That has been done by the special share, the details of which are set out clearly in the prospectus, which I invited the right hon. and learned Gentleman to read. He seems to be seizing with some delight on the number of employees who have applied. I should have thought that 3 million shares applied for by the employees was a pretty satisfactory return.
I can tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that 250,000 people have applied for shares—as well as the 89 per cent. take-up by existing shareholders—which is an indication of the confidence of people in the company. That is what it is all about.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that this is a private Members' day. I shall call all those hon. Members who have been seeking to catch my eye, but I ask them to put their questions as briefly as possible.

Sir Edward Gardner: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is considerable anxiety among those of my constituents who are employed at the British Aerospace division at Warton about job prospects and particularly about the future of the proposed European fighter aircraft? Is he able to say at this stage what he anticipates will be the effect of the sale of the Government's residual shareholding on job security at Warton and also upon the international negotiations that are taking place about the future of the European fighter aircraft?

Mr. Pattie: The sale which has been announced today will not adversely affect the job prospects of his constituents, about which he is rightly concerned.
I do not think that the specific outcome of forthcoming negotiations arise from my statement today.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Minister give the House a guarantee that no shares have been sold to foreign nationals, say, Libyan, Argentine or those of any of the other countries that have been involved in disagreements with British nationals during the course of, say, the past two or three decades?

Mr. Pattie: If the hon. Gentleman is asking me whether the nationals of any countries that he likes to name have bought shares, obviously I cannot give any such guarantee. If they are free to deal on the stock market, they are free to buy shares. The national interest is wholly safeguarded by the special share and also by the references to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission which are built in.

Mr. Timothy Wood: I congratulate my hon. Friend because I, with 9,000 British Aerospace employees, am delighted that the share sale has been such a success and, furthermore, that we have 260,000 shareholders now taking an interest in the company. I believe that that is excellent for the future of British Aerospace.

Mr. Robin Corbett: We all owned it before.

Mr. Pattie: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Will my hon. Friend say how many employees have shares and what proportion they represent of the total labour force? Will he also say a little more about the basis of allocations? If someone applies for 2,000, 1,000 or 500 shares, how many will he get?

Mr. Pattie: About 2,500 members of the work force have applied for the approximately 3 million shares. That figures relates to a total work force of, say, 70,000 in round figures.
My hon. Friend asked me for the share allocation basis. Those applying for between 100 and 200 shares will have 100 shares allocated to them. Those applying for between 300 and 500 will receive 125. Those applying for between 600 and 700 will get 150. Those applying for between 800 and 900 will get 175. Those applying for between 1,000 and 1,900 will get 200. Those applying for between 2.000 and 3,800 will get 225. Those applying for between 4,000 and 9,500 will get 250. Those applying for between 10,000 and 20,000 will get 275. Those applying for more than 20,000 have had their allocations and applications, rejected.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Minister be taking any steps to monitor what happens to the shares after British Aerospace employees have them, to make sure that the Government's original aim is still being maintained? Does he think that many of them will want to make a quick profit, which is what his friends in the City will be doing?

Mr. Pattie: Not if the experience of British Telecom is followed. No doubt the hon. Gentleman would like to see that happen. To the best of our knowledge, 1·7 million individual shareholders have still retained their shareholding in that company.

Mr. A. J. Beith: rose—

Mr. Corbett: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not know whether both hon. Gentlemen were here when I said that I would not call any hon. Member who had not been standing. However, I shall call the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith).

Mr. Beith: As the share allotment was the only new information in the statement, will the Minister accept some congratulation that he so geared the allotment that small shareholders will get shares, and some large shareholders will get none?

Mr. Pattie: That was the Government's deliberate intention, as we wish to encourage wider share ownership.

Mr. Corbett: rose —

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on.

Board and Lodging Allowance

Mr. Stan Thorne: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the problems of the young unemployed caused by statutory instrument No. 613, which has been effective since 29 April.
The problems of the young unemployed who rely on lodging allowance have been made acute by this statutory instrument. It is estimated that between 50,000 and 85,000 people nationally will be rendered homeless by this measure. Some young unemployed will be reduced to squatting, to living rough or to moving from place to place. This is yet another serious social problem directly arising from the Government's action in cutting benefits to the needy. The north Lancashire synod of the Methodist Church, for example, has passed an urgent resolution calling on the Government to rescind or modify these new social security measures.
Such measures jeopardise young people's right to vote, as it becomes increasingly difficult for them to register. It adversely affects their right to register with a doctor. Besides the 50,000 to 85,000 who may be affected by this measure, 100,000 people between the ages of 26 and 65 who are unemployed and in receipt of lodging allowance may also be affected and rendered homeless.
When this subject was debated early in April, the Minister replying to the debate said that there was a possibility that he would reappraise the measures contained in statutory instrument No. 613, which has now been issued. I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to permit this debate as a matter of urgency, because many young people will be affected within the next two or three weeks. In my area, young people have four weeks since 29 April, after which they will be ejected from their lodgings and become homeless. Therefore, this is an urgent problem from north to south of the British Isles.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Thorne) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the problems of the young unemployed cause by statutory instrument No. 613, which has been effective since 29 April.
As the hon. Member knows, the decision that I have to take is whether this matter should have precedence over the business set down for today or tomorrow. I have listened to what he has said, but I do not consider that the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10 and. therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Civil Liberties

Mr. Richard Ottaway: I beg to move,
That this House strongly endorses the need to protect the essential rights and liberties of the individual citizen, while recognising the vital need to preserve order and stability in our society.

Mr. Speaker: As we have a late start and six Back-Bench Members have asked to take part in the debate, and there may be others, I ask for short speeches in the hope that nobody will be disappointed.

Mr. Ottaway: There is nothing new about the House debating civil liberties, and I do not move the motion in a pioneering sense. Since the days of Magna Carta, which protected Parliament from the King, and the Bill of Rights, which ensured that barons were tried by barons, there have been many advocates of civil liberties and human rights. In the post-war years of the Attlee Government, British support for the European convention on human rights was backed by such eminent Members as Sir Winston Churchill and Lord Stockton from my party, and Ernest Bevin and Lord Layton from the Opposition parties.
In the 1960s, there was much pressure for the right of individual petition to the European Court of Human Rights and, latterly, alliance Members have moved ten-minute Bills in support of incorporation of the European convention into British law. Throughout this period there has been a keen awareness of the need to ensure that legislation recognises the individual's rights and liberties. Accordingly, although the House has not debated the subject for some time, I do not feel that I am trail blazing.
My interest in moving a motion such as this was sparked off by an event that, in many senses, has had a far-reaching impact on civil liberties, and has rent the civil liberties movement asunder. I refer to the coal strike, which has had so much impact on my constituency, which forms part of the Nottinghamshire coalfield. I have in my constituency Babbington colliery, which is one of the oldest mines in the country. Like all other pits in the Nottinghamshire coalfield, it continued to work throughout the strike. The House is aware of the scenes that characterised the dispute, and Babbington colliery was not spared. On two occasions, large numbers of pickets appeared at the front gate, and their behaviour was such that one was led to believe that the object of the exercise was to prevent miners from getting to their place of work.
On the first occasion it is estimated that some 2,000 pickets turned up, split themselves into two groups and then made co-ordinated charges at the police at the gate. At first, there were about 40 policemen, who were rapidly reinforced. In spite of the pickets' efforts, approximately two thirds of the men made it into the pit, largely thanks to the police, who were able to impose control and protect my constituents' right to work. Subsequent discussions with my constituents showed that many of them were most concerned not only about their safety but about that of the police.
On the second occasion, the police, in anticipation, had set up a checkpoint on the M1 about half a mile from the mine. However, the pickets circumvented it by abandoning their cars on the hard shoulder of the motorway and walking across the fields to the pits. Such


scenes, with large numbers of pickets turning up obviously intent on preventing working miners getting to the pit, were common throughout the Nottinghamshire coalfield. Large numbers of policemen were present to help maintain law and order and to apprehend those whom they believed were breaching law and order.
The stories of violence by pickets throughout the dispute are legion and are recorded in the document "The Miners' Dispute: A Catalogue of Violence." Likewise, complaints of police excesses have been recorded, and I am prepared to believe witnesses recording violent police behaviour. While everyone will support a picket's right peacefully to express his point of view, and the policeman's duty to maintain law and order if he does not, in such an explosively charged atmosphere as there was in the coal strike, it was inevitable that some people on both sides should have gone over the top.

Ms. Harriet Harman: Will the hon. Gentleman include in his speech protests not about individual police excesses but about the police policy, to which he has referred, of setting up road blocks? Those policies included preventing people from peacefully going about the country —for example, miners were turned back at the Dartford tunnel. Will the hon. Gentleman address himself to that problem, or only to the other side?

Mr. Ottaway: I do not intend to address that particular point, but I am prepared to be even-handed about the policing of the miners' strike. If the hon. Lady had been listening a moment ago, she would have heard me say that there were excesses on both sides, and it came as no surprise to anyone when both sides went over the top.
In view of reported excesses both by the striking miners and the police, it can have come as no surprise to anyone when the National Council for Civil Liberties set up an independent national inquiry into the civil liberties aspect of the dispute. The interim report of that inquiry has much divided the civil liberties movement. My personal opinion is that the report is independent and fair-minded. Although anyone with any political antennae will seek to argue some points on it, I think that most people will agree that it is even-handed in its approach.
Let me refer to that report. I believe that anyone who has any concern for civil liberties will agree with the statement:
protection from violence and fear of violence is a fundamental civil liberty principle which has been extensively violated during this dispute.
In reviewing that principle, the report is quick to condemn violence on the picket lines, to which I have referred, as well as excessive police action, for example:
rampaging groups of police officers have run through mining villages, bursting into houses in pursuit of pickets, causing extensive damage to property and assaulting residents.
If that is true, I am sure that hon. Members of whatever party will condemn such acts.
While such incidents are a matter for deep concern, they have not caused the rift in the civil liberties movement. It has been caused by the so-called clash between collective and individual rights. The report states:
It is a fundamental yardstick of freedom that workers may choose to participate in peaceful collective action, including the withdrawal of labour, to protect their interests.
That is the collective argument. However, what has caused all the trouble is what seems to me to be the perfectly reasonable statement:
We accept that freedom not to take part in a strike is as much a fundamental right as the right to strike.

That short but immensely important statement has caused much controversy. During the summer of 1984 anyone living in Nottinghamshire was keenly aware of the importance of both rights. Miners could go on strike if they wanted. There were striking miners in Nottinghamshire, and their views were respected. Alternatively, they could choose to go to work if they wanted. No one thought that those two opposite points of view were exclusive. Anyone who cares about civil liberties should be able to accept that the two rights can exist together.
Accordingly, it came as a surprise to me to hear that the NCCL which, after all, had commissioned the report, was unable to accept the premise that the right not to strike was as fundamental as the right to strike. As I understand the argument, it is suggested that the right not to strike weakens the effectiveness of the right to strike and the realisation of its objectives. To me, that is completely to misinterpret the role of the human rights movement. Those people are saying that power is more important than the right. I cannot accept that.
The same annual general meeting of the NCCL reaffirmed its existing policy not to give advice on civil liberties to the National Front. It should come as no surprise to anyone that a group such as the National Front, on the extreme wing of politics, should find itself in that situation. To paraphrase an extract from one of Bernard Levin's columns in The Times, he suggested that it would not be the local flower-arranging group that would seek advice, and summed up the principle by saying:
Free speech is for bastards too.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ottaway: No.
The trouble now is that any bastard who comes along to the NCCL for advice will find a notice on the door saying, "No bastards need apply."

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ottaway: No.
That approach to civil liberties, whether by the NCCL or any other group, is selective and fails the fundamental test of a bona fide civil liberties organisation, in that it is not prepared to support the rights of those whose views it finds unpalatable. The philosophy behind the present position of the NCCL seems to be a split between collective and individual rights and liberties, with the view that collective rights should override any individual rights.

Mr. Clive Soley: I follow the hon. Gentleman's reasoning, but he is making a mistake that has been made in some press reports. To be fair to the debate, he has not got the argument right and needs to clarify it. First, on the issue of striking, the objection was on equating the two rights as fundamental rights, whereas the mover of the NCCL motion said that the right to go to work without fear of intimidation or violence was a right to be protected. The second issue concerns advice. The NCCL would happily give advice to an individual member of the National Front, but not to the organisation itself. If the hon. Gentleman does not accept that, he is in difficulty, for example, in dealing with whether he would have given advice to the Nazi party in Germany. Judging


by his understanding and interpretation of the argument, I believe that he could have done so. The example would apply equally to the IRA.

Mr. Ottaway: If I were in a civil liberties movement, I would give advice to anyone who came to me.

Mr. Soley: To an organisation or an individual?

Mr. Ottaway: I would be prepared to give advice to an organisation or an individual.
I regret to say that that attitude reflects the Soviet attitude to civil liberties. In any aspect of Soviet life, whether political, social or economic, all those areas are run by committees, and all the decisions that are made are collective. The system has an in-built preference for collective rights over individual rights when they conflict. That is an abhorrent approach to civil liberties. The concept is alien to Western democracies, particularly in this country with its strong tradition of protection of the rights of the individual. In our society there is no place for that point of view. While I am not for a moment suggesting that there is any link between the Soviet Union and the NCCL, I believe that is is sad that the organisation should adopt such an attitude as its policy. In that context, it is worth noting that the American Civil Liberties Union is prepared to back the right of free speech for everyone, no matter how unpalatable their views.

Mr. Nicholas Lyell: Is it not worth noting that the National Union of Mineworkers, which used to be a democratic union, with the right to a ballot before either a local or a national strike, is now proposing to change its rules so that the national executive committee —in other words, the spokesmen of the collective—will be able to call out any member and all members on strike as and when it pleases, without calling a ballot?

Mr. Ottaway: My hon. and learned Friend is right. That is a typical example of the collective view conflicting with an individual right and seeking to dominate it.

Ms. Harman: The hon. Gentleman has just applauded the stand of the ACLU which, I agree, is a formidable and good organisation. However, will he say specifically whether he thinks that it was right, during the McCarthy Communist purges, that the ACLU did not stand up for Communists? Would he do the same in similar circumstances?

Mr. Ottaway: The ACLU did not stand up for Communists. I condemn that, and would do so in similar circumstances.
There is another aspect of this sorry tale. A little over a year ago, the NCCL celebrated its 50th anniversary. Its admirable then general secretary, Mr. Larry Gostin, publicly sought to expand the political profile of the NCCL, launching a liberty campaign and publishing an NCCL charter of national civil rights and liberties, which was signed by some 1,500 leading men and women from all walks of life. The question must be put to all those signatories, who include the leaders of the Social Democratic party and the Liberal party, and the Leader of the Opposition: can they continue to support an organisation with such a lopsided approach to civil liberties? No doubt those people will argue that they were merely signatories to a charter, the wording of which no one could disagree with. However, that is not the point.

It was described as the NCCL's charter, and the NCCL has chosen to interpret it in such a way that the right not to strike is excluded. To be fair to the leader of the Social Democratic party and certain members of the Liberal party, they have been critical of the position taken up by the NCCL, but they continue to support it and seem to say that they will endeavour to bring about a reform from within, despite the comment by Mr. Gostin that there was little prospect of that in the immediate future. To date, little has been heard from the other signatories.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he not realise the essential difference between a political party, for example, and an organisation such as the NCCL, in which people can continue to be members and attempt to change policies? Does he agree that his implicit criticism of people who are remaining within NCCL is entirely unfair and unjustified?

Mr. Ottaway: I would accept that point of view if it were not the fact that the outgoing general secretary thought that there was little prospect of immediate reform from within.

Mr. Carlile: But is that correct?

Mr. Ottaway: Mr. Gostin is well placed to see what is going on.
However, what is possibly even more alarming is the fact that a former general secretary of the NCCL, and a current member of the executive, is personal adviser to the Leader of the Opposition. In view of the fact that she believes that the right of the working miner not to strike is less fundamental than the right to strike, several million people who live in the working coalfield areas will be looking forward to hearing from the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) whether the Labour party agrees or disagrees with that point of view.
It is regrettable that there is a clear political split on this important issue. Civil liberties is a topic which needs to be treated on an all-party basis. If civil liberties are to be respected, fundamental rights must be supported and any political gulf between the parties over fundamental rights must be bridged. It is worth mentioning that Justice, an equally important civil rights movement with a much lower profile than the NCCL, has as part of its constitution a requirement that members of all three major parties should make up the executive. That is a sensible approach that gives much credibility to Justice.

Mr. Soley: I asked the hon. Gentleman to clarify an important issue. He has said again that the right to strike and the right not to strike, or to strike break, are both fundamental. He is implying that there is a right to work. If the right to work is to be maintained, leaving aside the 4 million unemployed, will he give full support to a group of workers who decide to enter their place of work if the management, for whatever reason, has chosen to lock them out?

Mr. Ottaway: That must depend upon the circumstances. I do not think that a right can be qualified. In the example that the hon. Gentleman has given, I do not say that the group of workers have a right, but one which is not quite as important as the right to strike. That is what was said at Nottingham during the miners' strike. We must not try to contrast a not-quite-so-important right with an important right.
I was saying that the executive of Justice has all-party representation. I welcome the formation of an all-party group for civil liberties and congratulate all those who worked for its inception.
Individual liberties are enshrined in the unwritten common law and statutes as interpreted by the courts of England. It is becoming more and more apparent that the common law, on its own, is not a comprehensive safeguard of individual rights and liberties. The growing evidence of this is the increasing number of cases that are found to be admissible by the European Court and the many cases in which the United Kingdom is found to be in breach of the convention compared with other countries.
There have been tremendous developments in English law in recent years. We have seen especially the development of the process of judicial review, which examines the rights of the individual when confronted with authority. From time to time, common law needs assistance from statute law. The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Race Relations Acts 1976 are two examples. Without these Acts, the common law would be entirely inadequate to deal with the issues to which they are directed. It was necessary to adjust the balance by introducing legislation.
Britain desperately needs a Bill of Rights. I support the call for the European convention on human rights to be incorporated into our legal system. It is not a perfect statement of rights, as it was drafted about 35 years ago. It is ironic that it lacks any express reference to the freedom of passage and the right to work, although such rights can be construed from it. However, it would be politically impossible to achieve consensus on anything other than the European convention. Accordingly, if there is to be any prospect of the incorporation of a Bill of Rights into our legislation it must be the European convention.
We have shown a marked reluctance to incorporate a Bill of Rights. After all, it took 15 years to establish the right of the individual to petition to the European Court. Despite a number of attempts to have the convention incorporated into our legal system, little progress has been made.
It is especially ironic that as the "wind of change" swept across Africa, one by one the Commonwealth countries, as they gained their independence, adopted the European convention on the advice of United Kingdom Governments. It began with Nigeria in 1958, and the convention, as incorporated into the Nigerian constitution, became the model for the "fundamental rights" which are to be found in the great majority of independent Commonwealth countries. In this way, the convention has been transplanted by Westminster legislation into the national laws of more countries and territories than are party to it.
There are many good reasons for the incorporation of the convention. As I have demonstrated, there is a substantial body of very learned opinion which believes that the common law has developed as far as it can go and has been found to be lacking on many occasions, the remedy having to be found in the European Court. The court has played an important role in developing and protecting human rights in Britain, from a prisoner's right of access to a lawyer to enabling The Sunday Times to publish its report on behalf of the disabled children in the Thalidomide tragedy. In this Session alone, two Bills have been introduced as a direct result of decisions of the

European Court. These are the new regulations on telephone tapping and the new restrictions on corporal punishment in schools.
As the convention is not incorporated into our law, one practical effect is that a judgment of the European Court cannot be referred to by British judges or relied upon in their interpretation of statutes and civil liberties. This deprives the judges of the power and responsibility of protecting civil rights. If the convention were incorporated into our legislation, a body of case law would be built up to which judges could refer, and those with a grievance could obtain a remedy from the High Court without undue difficulty.
No one should be under any illusion that it is an easy matter to have his rights reviewed by the European Court. A reference to the court cannot be made until al, remedies in the United Kingdom have been exhausted, which normally means that a petitioner has to go through the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords before he has a chance to take the matter to Europe. Apart from the fact that it will probably take him up to eight years to get there, he will probably bankrupt himself in the process of funding the action through the courts. If he then decides to take the plunge and goes on to Europe, he will not qualify for legal aid as it is not part of our judicial system. Therefore, those who find no remedy in our courts will have to suffer if they do not have the resources to go to Europe.
Let us suppose that a prisoner feels that his right of privacy has been infringed by a prison officer having opened his mail before he gets it. Leaving aside whether that is a good or bad idea, the prisoner has no remedy in this country as there is no right of privacy. His only prospect of remedy is to take the matter to Strasbourg, and the chances are that he will be released from prison before the European Court is able to make a ruling. It is taking eight years to make a ruling. If the European convention were incorporated in our own law, it would be relatively simple for the prisoner to make an application to the High Court for his grievance to be aired.
The introduction of a statutory Bill of Rights to Britain will almost certainly stop civil liberties from becoming a political football. A classic example is the reference to the European Court of the GCHQ decision, which is clouded in political controversy. Another example is the three British Rail employees, Young, James and Webster, who established at the European Court the right not to join a trade union, a case which is still not recognised by the NCCL.
It is worth considering whether the existence of the European convention would have made any difference to the miners' strike. This is currently a matter of some discussion by academics, but there would seem to be a general feeling that the Kent miners would have had a good case to take to the court over the road block at the entrance to the Dartford tunnel. Likewise the working miner would have had a much clearer established freedom of association — a right which is lacking in common law.
A Bill of Rights would be a pillar in our midst with which the young would grow up. The establishment of the right would no longer be the subject of a political argument and sectarianism would be removed from our society. The rights of the individual are paramount and they will receive support from all quarters of the House. The current debate over collective and individual rights is most disturbing and


a fundamental advance in individual rights and liberties would be the incorporation of a Bill of Rights into our legislation. That would go a long way towards ensuring that the rights of the individual do not become subservient to collective rights.
I recommend the motion and urge hon. Members to support it.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I am grateful to you for calling me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to participate in this debate. I speak not only as a Member of this House but as a new member of the executive committee of the NCCL.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Ottaway) has given us the benefit of a speech which fell into two distinct parts. The second part was a constructive exposition of some of the reasons why we need a Bill of Rights. That view has been expressed in various Bills, most recently in a Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan).
On the first part of the speech of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North, I agree with some of his remarks about the National Council for Civil Liberties. In particular, I deprecate the decision taken by the annual general meeting in connection with the right of working miners to go to work. However, the decision was to some extent blown out of proportion by the press, which failed to understand that the debate at the annual general meeting was a serious, legitimate, intellectual debate about the difference between group rights and individual rights. Although Conservative Members may laugh and scoff at the proposition that there can be an intellectual discussion of those issues, whether or not one agrees with the conclusion, there can be such a discussion.
The hon. Gentleman, perhaps inadvertently, said that in his view there was no place in our society for the view that the group right to strike outweighed the individual right to work. Those words were not worthy of him. Although we may disagree with the point of view of which he complained, it can respectably be held and argued.

Mr. Ottaway: rose—

Mr. Carlile: I shall not give way now.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that on 3 May, at the first executive committee meeting after the annual general meeting, the executive committee passed a resolution regretting the resignation of the members of the inquiry into the policing of the miners' dispute, and endorsing the annual general meeting's decision to endorse the independence of the inquiry and most of the conclusions of the inquiry's interim report. Before the hon. Gentleman seeks to pour too much scorn on the NCCL — it is important to distinguish between legitimate criticism and unnecessary scorn, as the former is justified and the latter is not—I remind him that at that executive committee meeting, in which I participated, the executive committee also declared:
The NCCL will continue to act as the guardian of Civil Liberties, independent of any political or industrial lobby, or faction.
The executive committee continued:
It must not be seen as the mouthpiece either of the trade unions or of those who oppose them … This Executive

Committee reaffirms its absolute commitment to the defence of the civil liberties of all citizens, irrespective of their individual political beliefs.
It is also important to reinforce the point made earlier by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), that at the annual general meeting the organisation reaffirmed its commitment to advise individuals of their rights, whatever political views they held and whatever the political organisations of which they were members.
As a member of the NCCL and its executive, my view is that the organisation should be prepared to advise organisations as well as individuals of their civil rights, even if it does not agree with their political views. I also believe that at the annual general meeting the NCCL took a disproportionate view of group rights as opposed to individual rights. That disproportionate view contradicts article 11, paragraph 1, of the European convention on human rights, which affirms the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association with others. That covers the right to go to work, even if there is a strike at one's place of work.
When one considers the controversies about the NCCL's annual general meeting — some of us are anxious to redeem the organisation of those controversies —it is important to remember that they represent only a small part of what was discussed. It is right to bear in mind that over 95 per cent. of the day-to-day work of the NCCL is not in the realms of the miners' strike and the National Front, but in the excellent work of advising ordinary citizens or groups of citizens who feel that their civil rights have been aggrieved.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the resignation of Mr. Gostin and those who are looking into the miners' strike is ample justification for the deep-seated criticism of the NCCL by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Ottaway) which, in my extensive experience, has never been interested in looking after the interests of people who wish to work when there has been a strike?

Mr. Carlile: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the resignations of Larry Gostin and the committee of inquiry gave rise to legitimate criticism of the NCCL. I have sought to make it clear that I agree with much of the criticism and the views expressed. However, it appears that already there has been some recognition, through the resolutions of the executive, that mistakes have been made. That is why I remain, at least for the present, a member of the executive and of the NCCL. I have not referred to all the other resolutions passed, but I commend them to Conservative Members.
Although Mr. Gostin's resignation is regrettable, it is important to remember that he remains a member of the organisation. His position became untenable because he was an employee, unlike, for example, a member of the executive or any other member of the NCCL. He was contractually bound to carry out the policies of the annual general meeting, and he was not in a position to change them, or, at least, his position made it extremely difficult for him to change them. Those of us who are not contractually obliged to the NCCL bear in mind that it is not a political party, but an organisation consisting of groups and individuals. The majority of members of the


NCCL believe in the all-party approach—the across-the-board approach — to which the hon. Member for Nottingham, North rightly referred.
The re-establishment of the all-party civil liberties group was an important step in that direction. The press has, to a great extent, misunderstood the status of the all-party civil liberties group, because Larry Gostin, then of the NCCL, helped to re-establish it. Certainly one should give him the credit of being highly influential in its re-establishment. As a result it has been assumed that there is a formal relationship between that group and the NCCL, but hon. Members will know that there is none. The group will, from time to time, undoubtedly be valuably served by the extremely good briefings which the NCCL is in the habit of providing to hon. Members of all parties. It is to be hoped that the group will continue, as appears to be the case, on an all-party basis.
The second part of the speech of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North was far more constructive, and was the more important part of the debate. Not only the hon. Gentleman, but—I hope that he will forgive me for this —some of his as yet even more distinguished colleagues have expressed similar views in the past. In a celebrated Dimbleby lecture, the present Lord Chancellor expressed the opinion that the Houses of Parliament were no longer able to provide satisfactory or adequate safeguards for the fundamental liberties of the individual. As all right hon. and hon. Members know, the simple reason for that is that our work in the House is too great in volume and too complex in detail for hon. Members to be able to look day-by-day at breaches of possibly important and, indeed, fundamental civil rights, which may have occurred as a result of unfortunate excesses by the police, local authorities. the Civil Service or other public bodies.
That view had been expressed before by many others. Not least, it had been said in strong terms in a pamphlet, published by the Conservative Political Centre, by the present Secretary of State for Education and Science. He had come to similar conclusions over 10 years ago on the same basis—that Parliament could no longer safeguard the liberties of the individual. The Liberal party and my hon. Friends in the Social Democratic party have long expressed similar views. Indeed, Lord Wade has a distinguished record of propounding that view, as have my hon. Friends the Members for Caithness and Sutherland and for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). The roll of honour goes across party lines on to the more independent Benches. That most distinguished of judges and constitutional lawyers, Lord Scarman, has expressed a similar view on many occasions.
The problem is that the only remedy that is realistically available at present to the citizen who feels that his fundamental liberties have been interfered with is an application for judicial review. The procedure has improved in recent months, so that it is now easier to apply for judicial review and quicker to have an application heard. However, the procedure is expensive and risky, and it involves going to the High Court. Many of those who have been wronged are people who may find the prospect of applying to the High Court for judicial review somewhat intimidating. It is right to say that the judges have been pushing out the boundaries of judicial review. Because of the liberal judicial interpretation that has extended the range of circumstances in which judicial review can be

applied for, it has become more possible for the citizen to obtain redress. However, it is a lengthy, expensive and intimidating procedure.
It is right to remind the House that not only have distinguished members of the Conservative party and the alliance supported my views, but that similar views have been expressed from time to time by members of the Labour party. However, it would be pleasing if one could hear an unequivocal commitment from the Labour Front Bench to a Bill of Rights. If one examines the Cabinet papers of the Labour Government during that crucial period between 1945 and 1950, when the European convention on human rights was ratified—this is clearly set out in a distinguished article in the 1983 volume of the journal Public Law by Anthony Lester QC—one sees that that Government, and especially the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Jowitt, did not have a good relationship with the convention. Perhaps I am oversimplifying, but it seems to me that, before the Labour Government eventually agreed to ratify the convention, some Labour members believed that if one paid too much attention to the convention, and certainly if it was incorporated into domestic law, there would be a severe risk of a Socialist Government losing control over a corporate state. If that is still the view of the Labour party—and I 'lope it is not — it will give our citizens considerable 'cause for concern.
The great advantage of the incorporation of the European convention —

Mr. Lyell: The hon. and learned Gentleman posed a question of great interest, and I saw the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, shake his head. But the question is ambivalent. What the hon. and learned Gentleman should have asked, and what must be clarified, is whether the Labour party believes that it can still run a corporate state despite the European convention, or whether it is prepared to accept the European convention on its merits.

Mr. Carlile: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for posing the question in that way, and I should be happy to hear an answer to it. I note that we shall get one in due course from the hon. Member for Hammersmith, who I am sure will give us a full answer.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that the Labour party has been ambivalent about this, but that some distinguished members of the Labour party support it? They include, notably, Lord Gardiner, the former Lord Chancellor, who wrote a letter to The Times in support of my Bill proposing the incorporation of the convention, and the sponsor of the Bill, the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason) who, from his experience, especially in Northern Ireland, recognised the value of incorporation.

Mr. Carlile: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I accept what he says. He reminds me of those two distinguished names on what I have already called the roll of honour, and I hope that their considered approach will permeate through to the entire Labour Front Bench.
Some parts of the European convention on human rights can be criticised as weak and somewhat wishy-washy. Indeed, article 8, which was debated at some length when we dealt with the Interception of Communications Bill, is


weak and is affected— or infected—by having been prepared in the nervousness of the immediate post-war years. However, I agree with the hon. Member for Nottingham, North that if consensus were obtained on a Bill of Rights, it would probably be obtained only on the European convention. It is detailed and tested, and it is certainly better than having no constitution at all.
If incorporated into our domestic law, I hope that it would mean that if a citizen believed that his fundamental human rights had been interfered with, he could go to a summary court—the local county court, where a hearing can be obtained quickly nowadays— for a declaration that his rights had been interfered with, and for other appropriate remedies, such as an injunction and damages. That would cut out all the nonsense and expense of having to plough through the system of High Court pleadings and proceedings before finally obtaining a contested hearing in the High Court as to whether there had been a breach of fundamental rights.
Another important reason for a Bill of Rights is that we are living in such a complicated society—much more complicated even than that of the late 1940s, when the convention was drafted — so that it is much more difficult for the citizen to know what his fundamental rights are. Indeed, I suspect that each of us from time to time is approached in his constituency surgery by someone who says, "But it is my right." Whether one be an expert constitutional lawyer or not, one cannot answer yes or no, because we have little understanding of what those "It is my right" rights are. It is important to define them as far as possible.

Mr. Lyell: This is a most fascinating subject. Before we charge too rapidly in the direction of incorporation, is it not right to remember, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, that the European convention has many faults, many wishy-washy aspects and obscurities, and that we have no opportunity now, or even if we incorporated it, to change it?

Mr. Carlile: The debate could develop into an interesting colloquy between myself and the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I have already spoken at length and I do not want that to happen.
At the moment we have no Bill of Rights worth the name. We need one, and the European convention provides a good basis from which our Bill of Rights could be drafted.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham, North, whom I criticised a few moments ago, on his luck in obtaining this debate and his good sense in choosing the subject of the debate. I hope that most of the rest of the debate will concentrate upon the constructive rather than the destructive parts of his speech.

Mr. Edward Leigh: The more time I spend in politics, the less certain I become about what other politicians tell me is certain. Usually there is an element of truth in what both sides say. But, no matter, because most of the great evils perpetrated in history have been caused by convinced adherents of a specific ideology or "ism". Those of us travelling

hopefully on the road towards an elusive truth are usually driving too slowly and have our eyes too closely on the road to kill anyone.
For me, the only certainty in politics is that just as the individual can only find his individual salvation from within himself, so the principal aim of political organisation and thought must be to enable the individual to have the fullest freedom of action and expression consistent with equal freedom for others.
For those of us who support the Western liberal tradition of the supremacy of the individual, those beliefs conjure up more dilemmas than they provide answers. The question was first posed by J. S. Mill in "On Liberty", when he wrote:
The liberty of the individual must be thus far limited. He must not make himself a nuisance to other people.
The classic dilemma is the right of the individual to speak out. That must include the right to criticise individuals and the right of other individuals to be given redress to protect their good names and reputations.
It is not surprising, therefore, that the doctrine of civil liberty, like that of democracy, is at once the most universally accepted doctrine and, in most countries, the most abused. Thus, the Soviet constitution has one of the most ringing acclamations of civil liberties, while we in this country have no Bill of Rights. I know, however, in which country my civil liberties are better protected.
As Burke said:
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
I find it useful to consider the analogy of the large house full of tenants, when addressing that dilemma. I should defend to the death the right of any of my fellow tenants to criticise me or the management of the house. I believe, however, that I have the right to stop, if necessary by force, one of my fellow inmates from wielding a pick-axe at the foundations of the house and bringing the whole lot tumbling down.
Let me illustrate my analogy with reference to the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. If our home is ringed with enemies armed to the teeth whose one aim is to destroy the pleasant liberal, democratic regime pertaining in the house, does one of my fellow tenants have the right to stand up and say that we should unbolt the door? Most decidely, yes. That is the right of free speech, however miguided. That is his civil liberty. It is a different matter if he insists on passing a message to the enemy outside, telling him how to unbolt the door. That is what CND is doing by telling the world where our cruise missiles are being deployed. Does the minority tenant have the right to demonstrate in the corridors of our house against the wishes of the majority? Most decidedly, yes. It is his civil liberty to demonstrate. Does he also have the right deliberately to sabotage the work of our house by sitting in the corridor and preventing the rest of us from moving about? That is different. It is denying the majority of us our civil liberties, and that is what CND means by civil disobedience. The British people agree.
In a recent Gallup poll commissioned by the Coalition for Peace Through Security, whose results have previously been unpublished, 52 per cent. of those who had an opinion approved of the monitoring by the security services of political organisations such as CND which have adopted civil disobedience in pursuit of their aims.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley): rose—

Mr. Leigh: No, I shall not give way.
An even larger majority—62 per cent. — supported the monitoring of trade union activists who are members of the Communist party. Why do the British people take that clear view? They recognise that those people are less interested in free speech than in bringing the whole house of freedom tumbling down.
The delicate plant of our civil liberties can flourish only if we respect the will of the majority. The alternative is the law of the jungle, the law of "might is right", and the immediate degradation and ultimate destruction of all our civil liberties.

Mrs. Clwyd: rose—

Mr. Leigh: I have already said no. The hon. Lady will have a chance to speak in a moment.
The state has the right to govern only so long as it is sustained by the majority. No regime unsustained by democracy has the right to destroy individual rights for the convenience of the state. Thus, the Nazi and Stalinist regimes in the 1930s, by denying the individual his
individual liberty and collective voice, rendered themselves instantly abhorrent, whatever their other crimes against humanity.
To the extent also that a regime like that in South Africa seeks to limit the civil liberties of one section of the community, so it destroys its right to govern the rest.
There cannot be one law of civil liberties for those whose opinions we like and another for those whose opinions we abhor. That is why I find what has been happening in the NCCL this month so alarming, and why I welcome the debate which my hon. Friend has initiated today.
Mr. Larry Gostin's heretical opinion was to assert:
the freedom not to take part in a strike is as much a fundamental right as the right to strike.
For those of us who believe in civil liberties there is nothing unremarkable in that statement, but to the majority of NCCL members, apparently, a collective decision to break one's contract of work by going on strike denies the individual his right to abide by his contract of continuing to work.
That decision reveals that the NCCL is far from being the guardian of the nation's liberties and is just another Left-wing pressure group. The NCCL even seems to have ignored what the sensible Left appreciates, that the failure to observe basic liberal principles of democracy was the cause of the Left's greatest defeat since the war—the collapse from within of the miners' strike because of the denial of a ballot to all the miners.
Why has the NCCL stood civil liberties on their head? A clue may come from an internal NCCL document which has come into my hands. It says:
NCCL has a ·5,000 overdraft facility which is guaranteed by the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers —Transport Salaried Staffs Association. In the past, NCCL has exceeded that ·5,000 limit by considerable amounts. A bank manager has met the NCCL's treasurer to discuss that. The bank takes the view that it will not give an overdraft limit beyond ·5,000 unless the guarantee is for a larger sum.
The NCCL is thus in the pockets of the trade union block vote. All that furore—a three to one majority against Mr. Gostin — is directed at the authors of a report, who all come from the Left of the political spectrum and who devote merely a passing obeisance to balance amidst a sustained attack on the police.
Of course, this is not the first time that the NCCL has taken such a biased line. Last year the NCCL was quick

to condemn the police for issuing passes to local residents at Molesworth. The NCCL made not a peep of criticism when CND issued passes to its members to pass through its own roadblocks.
The NCCL consistently promotes the collective rights of trade unions, but rarely, if ever, the rights of individual trade unionists.
It is no surprise that I have a record of a Ms Terry Marsland, who is a prominent supporter of NCCL. and a Communist, telling an NCCL meeting that the Soviets should be praised for going to the aid of the Afghan people —no doubt to defend civil liberties.
Patricia Hewitt, who is now ensconced safely with the Leader of the Opposition, used to be the general secretary of NCCL. In that capacity she pressed, not just for political control of the police—one would expect that from her—but for political control to determine whom the special branch should investigate for subversion. Does Ms. Hewitt want local Tory councillors in Lincolnshire, who may have an axe to grind, to decide which of her chums should be investigated? I certainly do not want that, and I doubt whether she does.

Mr. Gostin: , as we know, was finally forced to resign because, and I quote him, of the
intolerable interference from the NCCL Council Left wing extremists".
His is not the first defection from the NCCL by moderates; E. M. Forster and George Orwell resigned in the 1940s when they realised that the NCCL was too close to the then Communist party for comfort. One of NCCL's general secretaries, Ronald King, was found, after his retirement, to have substantial, if subterranean, links with the Communist party.
The ideological doublespeak that permeates the NCCL is evident from a letter written by one of its supporters to The Guardian. It criticises a very balanced critique delivered by Mr. Hugo Young, who is not a particular friend of the Conservative party. Listen to this extraordinary doublespeak:
Mr. Young's criticism of the NUM's failure t3 observe `basic' libertarian principles and his recommendation that the NCCL should allow a 'commitment to a political principle' is so much utopian sophistry. Such a stance is, moreover, overtly political. Liberty is not a neutral commodity that may be quantified. It is merely an ideological creation.
Yes, it is an ideological creation in the hands of those Left-wing extremists who now seem to control the NCCL.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. Leigh: No.
Liberty is indivisible. It is not an ideological football. It is a fundamental human right. As was once said, it may be dangerous, but it is the safest thing that we have.

6 pm

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: It is very sad that the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) has chosen to smear not only the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament but the National Council for Civil Liberties. It is also very sad that he has chosen to smear politicians by his comment that he objects to political control. The government of this country is about political control. It is fortunate that in this country political control is based on democracy. If it is good enough to have democracy to run the country, it is also good enough that democracy should be involved in such


issues as the control of the police. It is very sad when politicians who are openly involved in politics set out to smear the idea that there is something wrong with political control. Political control is right if it is balanced by the democratic right of the electorate to get rid of those who have political control if they misuse it.
I should have liked to be able to congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Ottaway) on having chosen civil liberties as the subject of this debate. It is a subject which is not debated sufficiently frequently in the House. However, the hon. Gentleman unfortunately chose to use this opportunity to attack the National Council for Civil Liberties. I believe that that was regrettable.

Mr. Ottaway: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bennett: In a minute or two, possibly.
It is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman chose to devote the greater part of his speech to an attack on the NCCL. There are many important civil liberty issues which are far more deserving of our thought and comments than an attack on the NCCL.
If I may deal first with the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for a Bill of Rights, it is questionable whether we ought to embrace such a Bill. Are there absolute, fundamental rights? All of us believe that there are fundamental rights, but when one examines them more carefully one finds that almost all of them have to be qualified. The right to work appears to be a fundamental right which we ought to embrace, yet in practice we do not embrace it because there are between 3 million and 4 million people in this country who are unemployed.
There also appears to be a fundamental right of free speech. However, I do not imagine that any Conservative Member would grant me the right, late at night, to knock at all the doors in the street in which I live and insist upon haranguing the people who live in those houses. That is a right which to a certain extent is limited. One also thinks that there is a right to breathe pure air, yet people also have the right to drive motor vehicles, which, to a certain extent, pollute the air.
When, therefore, one examines the question, one finds that many of the rights which we take for granted have to be modified to a certain extent, that for most rights there are corresponding responsibilities and that it becomes increasingly difficult to define those rights. Anybody who is to be tried ought to have the right to a trial in public, yet it is generally accepted that for certain offences against the state the trial ought to take place in camera. Although there is the right to an open trial, there is also the right to screen a juvenile from the publicity of an open trial. Therefore, a balance has to be struck between rights on the one hand and responsibilities on the other.
This causes problems over a Bill of Rights. If a Bill of Rights could be written in simple language, was absolute and self-enforcing, I should be enthusiastic about the introduction of such a Bill, but a Bill of Rights would not be self-enforcing. In almost every case it would have to be interpreted and implemented by somebody. One of the weaknesses of a Bill of Rights lies in its enforcement. It would have to be interpreted, and power would have to be handed over to the judiciary to interpret the Bill.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) pointed out that if a Bill of Rights or the European convention on human rights were enshrined in our

legislation it could be implemented by the lowest courts of the land, but in practice there would be appeals to higher and yet higher courts. Ultimately, the implementation of a Bill of Rights would very much depend upon the views of High Court judges, who are not elected.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I am puzzled by the approach of the hon. Member for Denton and reddish (Mr. Bennett). He seems to be calling into question the whole concept of the rule of law. Issues are interpreted by judges every day. Who else is to interpret the laws that are made in this House? I would ask the hon. Gentleman what is wrong about adopting the ordinary circumstances of the rule of law? Let the judiciary interpret, and let us rely upon the political impartiality of the judiciary.

Mr. Bennett: The problem with a Bill of Rights is that in some way it is absolute. There are many examples of the way in which judges have interpreted the law. If Parliament does not like their interpretations, the law is changed. If there were a Bill of Rights which was continually being altered by Parliament because it did not like the interpretation that judges were placing upon it, I do not believe that it would hold any attraction. The attraction of a Bill of Rights is that it is absolute, but even if it were absolute it would be subject to the interpretation of judges.
If one considers the enforcement of the constitution of the United States, one finds that it has been the willingness of judges continually to adapt and modify their interpretations that has allowed the constitution to work. Before we grow too enthusiastic about a Bill of Rights, I suggest that we ought to realise that if we enshrined such a Bill absolutely in law we should be handing over parliamentary powers to the judiciary. I am not particularly happy about the economic, class and sex backgrounds of hon. Members, but I would certainly argue that this House is more representative of the whole country than are our High Court judges.
As for the attacks on the NCCL, the strength of that body is that it is a broad coalition of interests—[HON. MEMBERS: "Of the Left."] It is a broad coalition of interests, which includes the vast majority of the people of this country. If people are interested in civil liberties they ought to be involved in the organisation and in arguing their point of view within it. The record of the NCCL during the past few years has been considerable. I pay tribute to the fact that an all-party group has been re-established in Parliament. It is sad that the previous all-party group did not have many members and that its meetings were held irregularly because insufficient Conservative Members participated enthusiastically in its activities. Had there been better attendance by all hon. Members, the group would not have had to be reformed.
There are many issues upon which an all-party group would not be appropriate. When a Bill is being considered in detail, it is appropriate that groups of Back Benchers from different parties should separately be briefed by an organisation like the NCCL. If one is in opposition, one's approach to the Government will be different from the approach of a supporter of the Government.
During the 10 or 11 years that I have been a Member of Parliament I have been impressed by the detailed briefing that has been given by the NCCL to hon. Members. Rather than attack it tonight, hon. Members should pay tribute to the back-up service that it gave those


hon. Members who served on Committees such as those dealing with the Police Bill, the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill and the Data Protection Bill. Throughout that time its secretaries and officials have briefed hon. Members extremely effectively.
I should have liked more time to consider matters which we should be spending more time arguing about, such as privacy, public order, the administration of justice, freedom of information and the pressing need for that to be implemented, and prisoners and women's rights. Sadly, in a short debate such as this, that is not possible.
The House must also spend time considering the relationship between the general public and the police. That is one of the areas in which our civil liberties are fast being eroded. I went to a football match on Saturday. Because of the large numbers of people who went to watch Manchester City, rather to my surprise, and, I suspect, that of others, I ended up going into the standing accommodation, an area to which I do not often go. Like many other older football supporters, I prefer to sit down. Among the younger age group with whom I went through the turnstiles I was horrified to find that the mass of discussion related to what they intended to do to annoy, upset and harangue the police if Manchester City were to lose.
I thought back to about 20 years ago, which was probably the last time that I went into that part of the terraces, when the same sort of discussions about what to do if the team lost went on, but with none of that antagonism and bitterness towards the police. I accept that at least 90 per cent. of the comments I heard from those young people were simply the result of bravado and that they had no intention of doing anything at all. But it represented a complete alienation between the youngsters and the police. It was also noticeable that the police no longer stand in the crowd in that part of the ground. They are down in front of the crowd, turned to face it.
We must find out why that alienation between young people and the police has come about. Unless we address ourselves seriously to repairing the breach between many of the younger generation and the police, increasingly our civil liberties will be put at risk. People will demand greater powers for the police to combat the sort of opposition that is now coming from that age group.
It is sad that although the hon. Member for Nottingham, North was right to choose civil liberties as a subject for debate, he spent rather too much of his time attacking the NCCL, whose record in Britain is excellent. Over the past few months it has had some fairly minor disagreements, but on the majority of its work there is consensus. It would have been better had he spent his time addressing himself to the more fundamental issues of civil liberties, about which we should all be worried and alarmed.

Mr. Anthony Steen: There could not be a more important subject for debate than civil liberties. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Ottaway) on choosing it. It is a subject which concerns us all. Conservative Members may think that the Labour party has a monopoly on civil liberties, but it is clear from the number of my hon. Friends present that it is the Conservative party which has a monopoly on civil liberties. Three Labour Members and two alliance

Members are present on the Opposition Benches. It is worth noting that there is a good attendance on the Conservative Benches tonight.
The debate has rightly centred on the rights of individuals, the liberties of the subject and the rights of the citizen. However, having listened to some powerful speeches, I find it slightly curious that not one hon. Member has mentioned that with rights come obligations. Obligations tend to be forgotten. There are obligations to neighbours, society, employers, teachers, and, above all, one's country. When one talks about rights, one should constantly couple that with obligations.
I want to talk about organisations, such as the NCCL and others, engaged in that important work. Such organisations usually raise the bulk of their funds from outside the state sector. It was revealing to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) that the NCCL has its overdraft facilities mortgaged to a trade union. That is regrettable, because it destroys the independence of that organisation.
There is nothing wrong in voluntary charitable work being financed by the state. We finance the Ombudsman out of public funds, and that does not necessarily compromise him. There would be nothing wrong in financing objectors to planning appeals, especially where the national interest is concerned. Objectors could be funded out of the public purse. Organisations committed to civil rights could be similarly funded. Instead of compromising them, it would give them a better basis for their work. The problem is that many such organisations would feel compromised if they received money from the public purse.
The trouble about so many rights organisations —welfare rights, civil rights, community rights and neighbourhood rights—is that whereas their objectives are highly laudable, they often masquerade under charitable status for the party political aspirations of their organisers — their paid staff. Regrettably, many voluntary organisations have been captured by party political activists— usually on the far Left, many of them Trotskyites — who believe passionately that their objectives and ambitions can best be pursued and advanced by using the vehicle of the organisation and twisting its objectives to suit their own party political purpose. That, I fear, is the new trend of the new Left.
I was involved, as some hon. Members may remember, in starting an organisation called Task Force in 1964. We recruited tens of thousands of young people all over London to give service to the old and lonely. By 1968 we had 70 paid staff. We raised money from local authorities, the Government and private donations. The importance of such an organisation was that it matched the aspirations of the young to the plight of the old and the lonely. In the best years we had 15,000 volunteers. The purpose of the organisation was to find and give young people something useful to do and something which they wished to do, which, at the same time, would help others less fortunate than themselves. It was a simple operation.
But today Task Force has been captured. It has now been renamed and it has become highly party-politically active. The same is true of the Young Volunteer Force Foundation, which I had the privilege of directing in 1968. It was launched by the Labour party under Harold Wilson. About 120 community workers, lawyers and social workers were directed all over the country to deal with social problems, community work, play groups and legal


advice centres in order to help people to help themselves. That was a magnificent operation with altruistic objectives. Despite the good work of the Task Force and the Young Volunteer Force Foundation, both have been renamed and captured by the staff, and they masquerade under the banner of caring.
I cannot understand why the Devon and Cornwall branch of the Community Youth Workers Union yesterday sent me a resolution saying:
This Union deplores the current attempt to destroy the public transport system by the present Government through the introduction of legislation to privatise and de-regularise public transport.
What has that got to do with community and youth work in Devon and Cornwall? That is what is happening on the civil liberties, community and voluntary work front. An old man told me last week that he accepted an invitation from such a voluntary organisation to go on a day trip to Brighton. He said: "I was looking forward to seeing the sea and The Lanes and down we went in a bus. We had a nice trip down and a good day by the sea, but on the way back the megaphone was switched on and for an hour and a half I was subjected to being told by a community worker that I had to protest and stick up for my rights when all I really wanted was a day by the sea. I was being harangued by social workers and community leaders into protesting about my rights." That is the way that many of these organisations have gone.
By the sound of things, the NCCL has gone the same way. It has been captured by the hard Left, and it does itself immeasurable harm by being identified as promoting a party political line. Of course organisations such as the NCCL will be political; that is the very nature of their work. But they cannot be party political. That is a difference that those who work in voluntary, community and civil rights organisations do not seem to appreciate.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Is it not a little hard to suggest that the NCCL has been hijacked by the hard Left? Although the annual general meeting may well have been attended by those of predominantly Leftish views, the election of executive committee members involved a postal ballot, and a Liberal—myself, as it happens—came top of the poll. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that I am part of an arrangement to hijack the NCCL on behalf of the hard Left.

Mr. Steen: The hon. and learned Gentleman has made a valid point. He is a pawn. He is highly respected in the House, and no one would think for one moment that he intended to hijack the NCCL. Indeed, some of my hon. Friends might think that he would do a better job than the present committee does. But the point is that the hard Left will use the hon. and learned Gentleman. He has not been here long enough to know just how easy it is for a Liberal or SDP Member to be used. I hope that he will be very circumspect about what is being done to him and about what may happen to him if he objects. The pattern in voluntary, community and civil rights organisations is that everybody resigns. I receive letters from the NCCL; and there is always an acting director or acting secretary, but never a real one. There is never a chairman; always a chairperson. People are always moving on.
I have always read the NCCL's briefs with great interest, and I have been very active in the House on behalf

of civil liberties. However, I regret what has gone on, and I believe that the situation is very damaging for that organisation. I am concerned that the Trotskyites are using such organisations to gain a rung on the ladder and a public platform for their views. Organisations including youth leaders, social workers, and the community work professions are now all riddled with party political activists. Whether those involved be social workers in Liverpool or educationists in London, they appoint their own kind and damage their own cause as a result.
Voluntary work is an honourable estate. It provided, and still provides, opportunities for people to give of themselves to those who are less fortunate. Many of the established organisations carry out their original briefs with professionalism and compassion. But since the early 1970s a new sort of organisation has come on the scene. Such organisations obtain charitable recognition for dubious ends and then go on raising money for the pursuit of their party political work.
The NCCL has a crucial role to perform in this country, but I believe that its work is now suspect. I believe, too, that many other organisations, claiming theirs is the true democracy, manipulate their members to ensure that the voice of the hard Left is heard. Indeed, the new cells of militancy are often based in community work organisations, protesting about benefits, rights and legal assistance. I regret that that is so. I regret that party politics of extreme kinds are entering and eating into this country like a canker, destroying a great deal of invaluable and dedicated work.
I have spoken strongly, because before I became a Member of Parliament I worked in this area for about 20 years. It has dramatically changed, and the remarks of Opposition Members should be tempered by the experience of those Conservative Members who have done the work and know what they are talking about.

Mr. Clive Soley: As I have said on several occasions, the democratic and civil rights of the people of Britain have been seriously eroded in recent years, and particularly under this Government. That is the case that I shall advance again today.
I would be the first to concede that that erosion has been going on for many years. There are several reasons for it, not least the effect on this country of the political problems in Northern Ireland. We should address ourselves to that, but that is not the subject of today's debate. The United Kingdom has seen a terrifying erosion of civil rights and that is why we have such an appalling record before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. More than any other country, we have been brought to book by that court. As a Member of Parliament and a British citizen who is proud of our democracy, I am ashamed of that. I should like to think that Conservative Members were ashamed of it too, but I do not think that they are, or ever will be.
The Government are making a fundamental mistake in assuming that order can be imposed at a time of social and economic distress. I remind the Conservative party that social and economic distress, and in particular mass unemployment and hyper-inflation, lead to calls for authoritarian leaders. Dictatorship lies at the end of that road. In the past week or so we have heard talks on the second world war. I remember, with respect, the comment by the President of West Germany. He said that the


German people must take responsibility for what happened during the Hitler years. There is much in that, but all of us must take responsibility, because all of us are responsible in a way for what happened in Germany before 1933. When hon. Members consider the hyper-inflation in Germany then, the mass unemployment, the feeling of national disgrace and the fact that the Germans could not cope because of the burdens put on them from afar, they must bear in mind that we ploughed the fields in which Hitler so ably sowed his seeds. When we forget that, we forget what we are doing here.
More than anything else, my objection to this Government is that they have tried to impose order in numerous situations where that cannot be done.

Mr. David Ashby (Leicestershire, North-West): rose—

Mr. Soley: I shall give way shortly in certain circumstances, but I am conscious of the shortage of time and the number of hon. Members who want to speak.
We should always beware of the call for order. Order is one of the most dangerous concepts out, unless it is qualified with the need for law and for civil rights. If people argue for order alone, they are arguing for the Hitlerite example of order. That is what Conservative Members forget so easily. Sadly, the failure of the motion — I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) that the latter half of the speech of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Ottaway) was constructive—is that it is assumed that we can have stability in the face of economic distress. That is impossible, as can be seen in Poland, South Africa and —I hate to say it—in Northern Ireland. We should have learned from that lesson. Ultimately, one cannot go on imposing order without a severe risk to the democracy that one is trying to defend.
I am not here as a spokesman for the NCCL, but I shall say what some other hon. Members should perhaps have said. I was not at that meeting and I have not read most of the documents associated with it. However, the interpretation put on it by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North was wrong for several reasons. As I said in my intervention, the point was that the NCCL had always defended the right to go to work free of intimidation and the threat of violence, even if there was a strike. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that the right to strike is equal to the right to go to work, he is in dead trouble with the 4 million unemployed. On the other hand, if he is arguing that the unemployed are just a sad fact of life and one of the vagaries of this Government's ideological system, he is still in trouble for the precise reason that I gave earlier. If that is the case, a worker has the right to go to work when he is locked out. I might expect to see every Conservative Member defending that right, but they will not do so.

Mr. Ottaway: The hon. Gentleman has turned my argument round through 180 degrees and is arguing it in the negative. But does the hon. Gentleman agree with the statement that the freedom not to take part in a strike is as much a fundamental right as the right to strike?

Mr. Soley: I shall argue that neither of them is a fundamental right. That is why the argument is wrong and misleading. The problem is that if one argues that there are absolute rights the first right must be the right to life.

Government Members do not argue for the right to life because they know that that right is qualified in terms of a member of the Provisional IRA in Northern Ireland or of a member of any other paramilitary organisation. It is qualified in war and when Conservative Members vote in favour of hanging.

Mr. Ashby: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Soley: No. The hon. Gentleman has not been present for the whole debate, and I am running out of time.

Mr. Ashby: I have been here.

Mr. Soley: I apologise. I did not notice the hon. Gentleman, but I must stick to the timetable.
The right to strike has always been regarded by the various international bodies as basic and important because it is linked to social and economic rights. As the NCCL says, everyone has the right to go to work free of intimidation, threats and violence. I support that stance 100 per cent. I suspect that I support it more than Government Members because it does not apply for them during a lock out.
A misunderstanding occurred over the National Front. The NCCL's position was simple. It will represent an individual but not an organisation. If an individual from the National Front said that he was in trouble with the police or the state the NCCL would advise him, but if an organisation dedicated to the destruction of civil rights asked for help the NCCL would reserve its judgment and not advise. The NCCL reserves its right to canvass for support, but some Government Members believe that it should not and that it should advise anyone. That means that it might have had to advise Hitler and that if the Provisional IRA took over in Northern Ireland it would have to advise that organisation because it would be a legal body.
The concept of equality is important to Socialists because we know that civil rights are conditioned by social and economic circumstances. A person earning a high income has more real civil rights than a person who is unemployed or on low income. That is probably why the constituent of the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) was lectured so terribly on the bus to the seaside.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) wanted to know the Labour party's position on a Bill of Rights. It is similar to the opinion expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). I recognise the strength of argument for a Bill of Rights and a written constitution, but the issue is complex. The Liberal view is to go for a European state in which a written constitution and a Bill of Rights applies. If one picked on part of what is, in effect, a written constitution, and put it into a constitution under which Parliament is seen as sovereign, difficulties would arise.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish said so powerfully, one of the significant differences between Britain and other western European powers and America is that entry to the judiciary is restricted to the higher socio-economic groups. That is because grants are not given to train a person through to being a judge.

Mr. Alex Carlile: What about magistrates?

Mr. Soley: The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery is supposed to be a lawyer, although from his interruptions I should not have thought so. Magistrates do not preside at Strasbourg, nor are they likely to. The point


is that entry into the higher ranks of the judiciary in Britain is restricted. The way to change that is to give grants for study to all people who want to go all the way to the top ranks. Until we achieve that the higher levels of the judiciary will be seen not only to be against, but not to understand the problems of many people whose cases go before them. That is why I should not want to pick up one part of a written constitution and incorporate it into our constitution.
The Government are guilty of being responsible for a serious erosion of civil rights. The evidence of that is in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act which allows 96 hours remand in custody. The Government have thought of dropping the idea of the duty solicitors scheme. The Law Society says that it is not possible for the Government to go ahead with the duty solicitors scheme unless it provides more money because it cannot train and administer such a scheme in time for January 1986. If that is so, the one in five people remanded in custody who need the aid of a duty solicitor will not have it.

Mrs. Clwyd: Does my hon. Friend agree that justice was not even-handed during the miners' strike, and that something serious is wrong with the Police Complaints Board which failed to uphold any of the 74 complaints against police officers during that strike?

Mr. Soley: Even the Government are unhappy about the Police Complaints Board. We believe that the existing system is excessively bureaucratic. I should prefer a type of ombudsman with the power of investigation up to the point of public prosecution if a criminal offence is suspected, and then that case could be handed to the independent public prosecutor.
Attacks on trade union rights and restrictions on picketing in the 1980 Act made the miners' strike and other strikes worse then they might have been. We sometimes forget that industrial unrest applies in many industries. What do Government Members expect, with 3 million or 4 million people unemployed? What do they expect when they cut benefits to people who are already struggling? Do they expect the British people to be different from the people of Poland when their basic rights are attacked? What do they expect when such an attack on trade union rights was made at GCHQ?
The Government are using the police force as the Tory party's private army to enforce failed economic and industrial relations policies. Since 1979 the crime rate has been increasing, and it was up by 9 per cent. last year. Riots have taken place in our inner cities and in connection with industrial disputes. Rioting has taken place in the villages of Britain, and yet the Tories say that they are the party of law and order. It is the party of rising crime rates and increasing disorder. Its social and economic policies are the cause. So long as the Government try to address the symptoms by screwing down the lid they will fail to contain the problem and store up dangerous problems for the country.
Labour Back Benchers have stopped a number of private Bills which would have required notice before a procession could take place. I am pleased about that, because the right to demonstrate has been eroded by the Government. Permits have been required to drive from one part of the country to another. The essential difference between a CND permit and a police permit is that one is

given to the state. That is a potentially dangerous power to give to the state—it is the same as the permit to move in the Soviet Union.
The Government have been responsible for jury bashing and have attacked ethnic minority groups in the British Nationality Act which creates stateless citizens now called British overseas citizens. Foreign husbands of women settled here are not allowed in, so we divide families, against our own signature to the Helsinki declaration.
The Commission for Racial Equality report leaked to The Guardian said that the measure was being used to keep black immigrants out. The Data Protection Act with its minimal safeguards does not even cover manual records and, as with the Interception of Communications Bill, the Government have been forced to introduce it because of the Strasbourg court.
I concede that the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act was introduced by a Labour Government but it is now being used for one of the most steady of all erosions of human rights. Yet this Government tried to take out the word "temporary". Secrecy is one of the greatest enemies of an open society and yet the Government refuse to put the security services under a Select Committee.
The GLC and the metropolitan counties are to be abolished. We must remember Sarah Tisdale, Clive Ponting and Cathy Massiter. The message if one plans to give away secrets, is to ensure that they are big secrets because one will not then be prosecuted, but if they are little secrets one will be taken to court.
There is a major threat to civil liberties. One of the dangers is the need for order that all Governments want to pursue to some extent. Therefore, the House should always be on its guard. The Government are trying to deal with social and economic problems by increasing centralised power and order. Centralised power is itself a danger to liberty, as is unaccountable power. We often hear the Tory party talking about trade unions, but how little do we hear it talking about votes in companies, votes between people—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shareholders."] Oh no, not shareholders. Every time someone buys a pint of beer, he gives money to the Tory party. Is that not right? Is it not true that that is the way in which the Tory party raises money from the consumer without a vote by anyone, and especially the employees? It is the sort of dishonesty and double standards that we have come to expect of the Tory party.
I am reminded that 340 years ago there was disorder in the House when the King broke in. Fortunately, many people resisted that and there was violence. If they had not resisted, this country would not have become the mother of Parliaments and this House would not have been the defender of civil liberties that it should be. If many Conservative Members had been alive at that time, they would have supported the King, and they know that.
The Opposition are on the side of civil rights. We do not think that there are any simple definitions or any simple answers to difficult problems. But we do know that if we try to govern by oppressing significant parts of our community, we will create trouble in our society. That trouble will sooner or later destroy our democracy.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): We have just


listened to an extraordinary speech from the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). I breathed a sigh of relief when I heard that the hon. Gentleman was to speak rather than the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk), whose all-purpose ranting on these occasions is well known. But even the hon. Member for Knowsley, North might have blushed at some of the remarks in the speech of the hon. Member for Hammersmith.
I shall be brief, so I will have a self-denying ordinance with myself about picking up the hon. Gentleman's points. A great deal of his speech was humbug, especially when he prayed in aid what happened during the civil war. He showed a total lack of understanding of the courage of individuals who went through the hundreds of jeering pickets to exercise their right to work. The idea that the spirit that took England through the civil war and allowed this place to rise to the position that it exercises today was not the same spirit as that shown by Nottinghamshire miners is humbug, partisanship and a narrow sectional view of civil liberties that is quite astonishing coming from the hon. Gentleman, whose views I often commend.
Again, the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the Interception of Communications Bill were pure humbug. When the Opposition were in government, they exercised the same powers and did not dream of introducing the safeguards that this Government have introduced in the Bill. Part of his attack was on a little measure on juries that I helped to take through the House, which was proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Watson). The proposal was to exclude from juries people with criminal records. What is there in the advancement of civil liberties that requires us to retain crooks on juries? I do not understand that point.
The hon. Gentleman complained about the steps necessary to protect rural communities—which, through no fault of their own, live near defence establishments —from major incursions by all manner of people who think it their right to enter their communities and make trouble. Yet he did not say a word about all the demonstrations that led to the need for exceptional measures.
The sad thing about the hon. Gentleman's speech was its lack of balance, and we must turn to balance if we are to have a civilised debate on these issues.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Ottaway) on introducing this motion. Not the least of his achievements has been to show the Labour party in its present, rather unsavoury, mood. However, the need for balance was the important point that he made. I appreciate that intellectual abstractions are as crucial to this subject as to any other, but in the end the practical business of government requires weighing the need to protect the essential rights of individuals with the equally vital need to preserve order and stability in our society. Where we strike that balance is always a matter for careful judgment. I do not believe that this Government stand in any condemnation of having got the balance wrong.
I wish to take up the hon. Member for Hammersmith on one of his examples — the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. The previous Government were sufficiently concerned about the imbalance between police powers and the rights of citizens to set up a Royal Commission. It reported and, following its proposals, legislation was introduced to provide powers necessary in each area of activity—from stopping and searching on the streets, to

searching of property, through to the questioning of detained persons. The guiding principle was that the powers provided should be sufficient for the task faced by the police, but no more than were needed in the circumstances, and that each power should have a check.
The hon. Gentleman was on decidedly sticky ground when he cited the 96-hour provision. His experience in the criminal courts is sufficient to know that on a number of occasions the courts have upheld the power to detain for 96 hours or longer. The question how long the power to detain should be in each case could never be prophesied at the start. We now have the position that not only is 96 hours the maximum, so certainty is imposed, but that to get to that 96 hours there must be two hearings before magistrates at 36 and 66 hours. There is an absolute right —something that the Labour Government never gave—to legal representation where there is not a serious arrestable offence, and a right to legal representation in all but the most extreme circumstances where there is a serious arrestable offence. I think that the hon. Gentleman's attacks were well wide of the mark—

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Minister give way on the point about duty solicitors?

Mr. Mellor: This is not the occasion to say more than that we have advocated the duty solicitors scheme and we will ensure that it is introduced. The necessary horse trading and bargaining that go on should not obscure from the hon. Gentleman the sincerity of the Government's intention. It is no good the hon. Gentleman scoffing about money. Money becomes a large criterion when Opposition Members move their bottoms from their Benches and come to the Government Benches. It is only in opposition that they pretend that they can forget about money.
I respect the sincerity and thought with which a number of hon. Members have advanced the case for incorporating the convention in some form in our domestic law. Anyone who advocates that should not be under any illusions about its significance. I want to endorse a number of the points made by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). The Government have no plans for any early initiative and take the view that there needs to be a much greater consensus in favour of such a major change. The burden of proof for such a major change lies very much on those who advocate it.
The hon. Gentleman raised a valuable point when he noted the parallel with the United States—something that deals with the necessary creativity with which the dead letter has to be interpreted and have breathed into it the life of the particular age through the judiciary and not through the legislature. That crucial point should not be underestimated. Implicit in what he said was the politicisation of the process for appointing senior members of the judiciary, which might cause some of us to pause before we would want to see it in the United Kingdom. We must accept that if we adopted that system, inevitably the balance between the courts and Parliament would be altered. That is not to say that there is not a compelling case on the other side, but it needs to be made in recognition of the enormity of what is proposed.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith attacked the United Kingdom's record before the European Court. The case is not as stark as he suggested. It is true that on 11 occasions the United Kingdom has been found to have been in violation, but Belgium, a far smaller country, has


been found to have been in violation on nine occasions, the Netherlands on five and Italy on six occasions, and Italy allowed the right of individual petition seven years later than we did. It is hardly fair to make a comparison with, say, France as France did not even allow the right of individual petition until 1982.
There was a good deal of unreality about the claim of the hon. Member for Hammersmith that that demonstrates that the United Kingdom is a country in which civil liberties are dead, just as there is an air of unreality about reading the Soviet constitution. The reality, however much we may want to play partisanly with the figures, is that the United Kingdom is a country in which the flame of individual freedom burns brightly; and if it fails to burn brightly, that is as likely to be because of the actions of those on the Left as anything that the present Government might propose.
Rightly or wrongly—and one suspects that the extent of interest in the matter from one country to another might determine the final outcome—there is a great deal more interest in these issues and more organisation about them in the United Kingdom. The fact that we have been found guilty of violations on 11 occasions must be set in the scales against the 823 cases that we have been notified as being brought against us.
Much has been said about the National Council for Civil Liberties. It is not much to do with the Government, but I would have hoped that any organisation devoted to civil liberties would not have taken exception to a report which said that the freedom not to take part in a strike was as fundamental as the right to strike. The special pleading of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) was worrying. I admire him and I do not criticise him for trying to make that organisation work, but he will have an uphill struggle. I need only look at the motion passed by its executive in February—I do not know if he was a member of the executive then — which regretted that the inquiry had exceeded its terms of reference in commenting on the conduct of striking and working miners, and charged that the presentation of the report was
unnecessarily damaging to the miners' cause.
What is a civil liberties organisation doing criticising a report that it set up on the basis that it was
unnecessarily damaging to the miners' cause"?
There is more than a hint of the world that Joseph Stalin would have understood in all that.
I remind the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery that for the inquiry, which was willing to look at the civil rights of working miners, who, throughout the dispute, were faced with systematic mass picketing, violence and intimidation to prevent them from going to work, and to comment on the situation, to come out with the legal quibble that the executive and AGM of the NCCL did—that it was outside its terms of reference—verges on the contemptible in the view of most people. I wish the hon. and learned Gentleman well, but he has an uphill struggle, and, sooner or later, he will be asked whether he does more good for the NCCL by being in it or more damage to the Liberal party's standing by being in it.
I wish my hon. Friend's motion success. He presented it well. I look forward to hearing other commendations of it before, all too soon, this debate is cut off in its prime.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I, too, shall be extremely brief, although I should have liked to comment strongly on the reactionary and bigoted comments of the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh).
Justice has not been even-handed in relation to the miners' strike. Hundreds of miners were charged. Some were fined, and some were imprisoned, during the dispute, but no complaints have been upheld against police officers following complaints being reported to the Police Complaints Board during the strike. Indeed, today I received a letter from the board dealing with a complaint of mine against the police following an incident in my constituency outside the Phurnacite plant on 7 December 1984. There have been many comments in the press about that incident. It took six months for that complaint to be dealt with, and only after the Home Secretary intervened personally did I receive a response from the Police Complaints Board.
I wish to place on record my view that the letter that I have received from the board represents a complete fabrication of the events as they took place on that day. The board has accepted totally the evidence given by the police officer concerned and has taken no notice whatever of the evidence given by me and a Labour councillor. The board comes to the conclusion:
Because there is no fully independent evidence to resolve the dispute between your account of the incident and that given by the officer, no action will be taken.
That method of dealing with my complaint is unsatisfactory, though I suppose one must remember that the members of the board are appointed by the Prime Minister. Clearly, they have not been able to investigate my complaint thoroughly and impartially, as they are charged to do.
The new police complaints procedure came into operation on 29 April 1985. It fails either to ensure independent investigation of complaints or to provide for legal representation for police officers in all cases when they face disciplinary action. The much-vaunted independent element is grafted on to a scheme in which investigation remains in the hands of the police. There is little in the new scheme to increase public confidence.
I regret the fact that the Minister did not address himself to the need for research to be carried out into the new police complaints system. It is clear that the system suffers from a dangerous lack of public confidence, and that has not been helped by the failure of the board to uphold any of the 74 complaints against officers reported to it during the miners' strike.

Mr. David Ashby: I have been extremely disappointed by the debate, in particular by the remarks of Labour Members. It is unfortunate that at a time when we have established an all-party group on civil liberties we should have had from the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) the type of speech that he made.
To speak as the hon. Member for Hammersmith did, and to equate unemployment and the economic situation of the country with civil liberties was a travesty of the facts, and his remarks were totally unjustified and unworthy of him. If he wishes to speak of a Government who are pursuing to the very limits measures designed to


reduce unemployment and improve the economic lot of the nation, an Administration with a high record for civil liberties, he must speak of the present Government. Everything that the Conservatives have done and are doing has had as its prime objective the reduction of unemployment and the economic w ell-being of the nation. His argument was absolutely false and divisive.
I shall mention two matters that are helpful to civil liberties. The first is the role of the ombudsman. His role is extremely important in terms of civil liberties—this applies especially to the health ombudsman — and I should like to see an extension of the system to a defence ombudsman. The second relates to freedom of information. This is an aim which we should be able to achieve, if not in this Parliament, in the next one.

Mr. Ottaway: Many hon. Members have expressed disappointment over the debate having been what they described as an attack on the National Council for Civil Liberties. President Truman once said that if one could not stand the heat one should not be in the kitchen. There is no doubt that the NCCL is a front-line political group which expresses political views. It must, therefore, expect criticism.
Hon. Members have said that I attacked the NCCL. I did no such thing. I merely said, as others have said, that I did not agree with the policies that it had put forward. That is very different from attacking it. This has not been an NCCL-bashing exercise; just a debate in which many hon. Members have said that they cannot agree with the NCCL's point of view.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) made an interesting comment in reply to my intervention. When I asked whether he accepted the statement in the NCCL report, he said that basically he did not think that the right to strike—or the right not to strike—was a fundamental right. I am sure that many people will be very interested to hear that.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House strongly endorses the need to protect the essential rights and liberties of the individual citizen, while recognising the vital need to preserve order and stability in our society.

Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Speaker: We now come to opposed private business. Before calling the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) to speak on behalf of the promoters of the Bill, I should announce to the House that I have selected the instruction in the name of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) to be debated with the Second Reading of the Bill.

7 pm

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I have a sense of deja vu because for many years I had to comment on behalf of the Government on various private Bills dealing with transport and ports matters. Now that I find myself on the other side of the water. so to speak, I shall be fascinated to hear what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say when he arrives and is ready to speak.
It is generally acknowledged that Felixstowe has become the most successful port in the United Kingdom, and it has built that success with virtually no need to resort to Government funds. Felixstowe is outside the national dock labour scheme, and it has excellent labour relations. The Bill provides an opportunity to build on the port's success and to enable it to compete on equal terms with rival ports in Europe.
The Bill will allow Felixstowe to expand its container quays by extending the limits of its jurisdiction approximately 1,000 m along the eastern bank of Harwich harbour. At the moment, the Felixstowe Dock and Railways Company is undertaking a ·40 million expansion. Once that is completed — when the new Trinity terminal is ready—the port will have no further space to expand within its statutory limits. The promoters estimate that by 1987 the port will be woking to capacity, including the new Trinity terminal. Its customers —British, continental and American—will need to know by then, before committing themselves to any further trade through the port, whether it will be capable of handling their future requirements. If they cannot be so assured, they will go elsewhere. That may well mean that those customers will leave Britain and go to ports outside this country.
Since 1965, cargo passing through Felixstowe has increased tenfold to well over 9 million tonnes. The port's speciality is containers, of which some 3 million per year are handled throughout the United Kingdom. As I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister will agree, containers are the growth element in the ports' business, not just in this country but throughout the world. The OECD predicts a growth of between 3 and 5 per cent. per annum in the production of manufactured goods in years to come., most of which is likely to be traded internationally in containers. It is estimated that 10 million tonnes of cargo in the United Kingdom has still to be containerised.
The container revolution, to which this country came slowly, means that more and more containers are being carried on round the world routes by enormous mother ships which can trade only into ports which have first, the appropriate depth of water and, secondly, but equally important, the facilities for those big ships to be loaded and unloaded and turned around very quickly. If we cannot


provide ports with those facilities, this country will be bypassed. Felixstowe offers the opportunity for Britain to stay on the main line of world trade, but if its expansion is thwarted the big ships will not come to this country and our trade, our jobs and our economy will suffer.
It is important to say who supports the Bill. First, there are the promoters, who have explained their proposals very clearly in their note to the House. Secondly, chambers of commerce and industry from the whole of East Anglia and from the east and west midlands unanimously support the expansion. The chairman and all the shop stewards of the Transport and General Workers Union docks section throughout East Anglia are also in favour of the Bill. The Freight Transport Association, incorporating the British Shippers Council, in its statement of 9 May, said:
Industry needs port services that are competitive with, and comparable to those available in mainland Europe.
Felixstowe docks match these criteria to a very high degree …
FTA sees the Felixstowe Bill as a welcome initiative on the part of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company to ensure that they are able to meet future demand for their services. It is welcomed by FTA in the belief that it will extend and improve the level of port services available to British industry.
In fairness, I should also say who is against the Bill.

Sir Anthony Grant: Before my hon. Friend leaves the list of those in favour of the Bill, I hope that he will mention Trinity college, Cambridge, as the college meeting voted by 48 to nil in favour of the proposal.

Mr. Griffiths: I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant). He is always diligent in standing up for the interests of Cambridgeshire and of Cambridge university. It has come to my notice, however, that certain graduates of the university and, indeed, my hon. Friend for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James), hope to take part in the debate, so I thought that I would leave Trinity's case to them.
Among those who are against the Bill, there are said to be fears on three main issues locally — safety of navigation in the mouth of the River Orwell, the effect on the port of Ipswich, and care for the environment. I shall deal with the effect on Ipswich first.
Ipswich, a splendid city with an excellent football team, has never opposed the Felixstowe development on commercial grounds. What is good for one port in the haven is good for the other, and our ports have grown together at similar rates. In any case, Felixstowe would be handling ships of a draught which could not navigate the upper reaches of the river. The town of Ipswich has no need to fear job losses as a result of the development. On the contrary, 24 per cent. of the work force at Felixstowe live in Ipswich, and their numbers are increasing all the time. The Bill will provide substantially more jobs for the people of Ipswich.
Concern has also been expressed about the safety of ships trading to and from Ipswich. I am glad to be able to tell the House that that concern has led to a new and very welcome draft agreement between the ports of Harwich and Felixstowe, whereby the navigable waters which under the Bill would have passed to Felixstowe will now go to Harwich. My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Sir J. Ridsdale) will be pleased to know that Harwich will

be in charge of rights of way in the estuary and will continue to be the pilotage authority for the entire harbour. The dock company has now applied to Parliament to promote the additional provisions in the Bill to give effect to those arrangements.
I am also assured that this development, with its associated dredging work, would double the width of navigable water available between Fagbury point and Shotley spit. I am glad that my hon. Friends the Members for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) and for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer)—are listening carefully. I know of their concern about the river's width. The deepening of this navigable fairway will mean that the large container ships will be able to arrive and depart at virtually all stages of the tide. At present, large ships can move only during a limited high water period. This great improvement will mean that the incidence of delay will be substantially reduced. Ipswich traffic can be given the right of passage over vessels going to and from the new berths on the rare occasions when problems arise. I very much hope that the port of Ipswich will negotiate on the basis of this handsome offer that has been made to it for priority wherever problems might arise.
I turn to the argument on jobs in Ipswich. I was sorry to see the announcement the other day of a loss of jobs in the port of Ipswich. No doubt the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) will wish to comment on that. In Felixstowe, where a large number of Ipswich dockers work, there is an industrial relations record second to none in the British ports industry. The 1,100 members of the TGWU at Felixstowe refused last year to join the second national strike. Felixstowe is, however, a closed shop. All employees belong to the TGWU, and they voted overwhelmingly in favour of this expansion plan at their last mass meeting. The convener of the TGWU at the port said:
I support the expansion of the port of Felixstowe for three main reasons: firstly. because it gives the existing members of our work force increased job security; secondly, because it gives the people of East Anglia generally the opportunity to get more work from or through the port of Felixstowe; and finally and perhaps more importantly, this port is vital to our region's growth. I feel very much for the unemployed in Suffolk whose numbers have risen alarmingly.
I hope that those remarks will be taken seriously.
I turn to the environmental aspects. Suffolk county council gave careful thought to the Bill and decided not to oppose it. Suffolk district council voted by a narrow majority not to withdraw its petition. The vote was 24 to 22, but I understand that there were several others present who did not vote because they had a direct interest in the port. A small number of other petitioners are concerned with the environment. I want to say to them that, for five years, I was an environment Minister, and I had particular responsibility for coastal and waterway matters. No one can possibly doubt the attractions of the River Orwell and its adjacent mud flats, especially to water fowl and to all those, including myself, who enjoy sailing in the estuary. I understand that the hon. Member for Ipswich is an old sailor in the estuary.
I pledge that I shall not be a party to the Bill's going on to the statute book unless, on balance, the disbenefits it may bring to the overall local environment are outweighed by the environmental benefits that will be required of the promoters by way of widening the river, tree planting and landscaping schemes and other appropriate arrangements. Obviously, it would be up to


the Opposed Private Bill Committee to consider how far the commitments that the port has already made to environmental safeguards are adequate, but the facts to date make nonsense of such widely publicised scare headlines as "Environmental catastrophe."
The balance sheet of losses and gains on offer so far is as follows. On the losses side, 140 acres of mud flats and salt marsh would be taken into the new wharfage; but, on the gains side, there would be 87 acres of new woods and tree belts, including no fewer than 500,000 new trees—most of them, I hope, of local varieties—and 20 acres of new wetlands, 10 acres of orchid meadow and 15 acres of extra tree belts, all of which would be subject to discussion with the planning authority. Another loss would be the half-mile of river wall footpath that would disappear, but the gains would be two new footpaths doubling the path length and the 11/2 miles of river wall path which would remain and sections of it which would be upgraded to bridleways for the benefit of riders.
Whether these safeguards are sufficient is up to the Opposed Private Bill Committee, but I want to remind the House of a few points of perspective. First, the shore line of the River Orwell is 22 miles long. The proposed extension covers half a mile of that shoreline—2.5 per cent. only of the total area. It can hardly be described as an "environmental catastrophe" when 97.5 per cent. of the shoreline remains untouched.
Secondly, there is an area of outstanding natural beauty, accounting for 151 square miles of the county of Suffolk. I care deeply for that AONB, but I remind the House that the port extension is just one third of one square mile of the total of 151 square miles.
Thirdly, the area that is earmarked for expansion is environmentally less attractive than the upper reaches of the Orwell. I have walked that area, as have my hon. Friends.

Mr. Peter Hardy: I think that the hon. Gentleman will admit that the area that he has described as mud flats is of importance in terms of the international environment and is a site covered by the RAMSAR convention on wetlands of international importance. It is recognised internationally as a site that is of such prime importance for wild fowl that it deserves the protection which we thought areas of outstanding natural beauty received.

Mr. Griffiths: I shall respond to the hon. Gentleman's points shortly.
The upper reaches of the Orwell are really attractive. The Trimley marshes are important, as the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) said, but they are mainly reclaimed land. Upstream, where there is to be no further expansion, as Trinity college has made crystal clear, the banks of the estuary become more undulating, wooded, natural and beautiful, and they must be protected.
Fourthly — I come, though glancingly, to the point made by the hon. Member for Wentworth—Felixstowe recognises, as I do, that the Orwell is a valuable feeding ground for birds, especially waders. The port is, therefore, financing 75 per cent. of the cost of an extensive bird count survey. But the area of the dock extension is crucial for only three of the 30 species of birds that have been studied by the Suffolk Trust for Nature Conservation. Moreover, the trust's report —not not the port company's — shows a considerable movement of the birds within the Rivers

Orwell and Stour. That has strengthened the view that Felixstowe's development would displace a relatively small number of birds and would not disrupt the ecological balance of the estuary as a whole. Felixstowe has, nevertheless, offered the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Nature Conservancy Council a 25-acre wetland on the adjoining marshes to provide an alternative habitat. That is very similar to the internationally recognised Minsmere project in Suffolk where the flooding of 25 acres of land has been spectacularly successful.
After some years of service as an environment Minister, I can say that the Orwell land and seascape has largely been moulded by man. That is true of most of Britain's heritage. Therefore, I look to the opportunity of Felixstowe's expansion to take steps to ensure that the overall impact shall ensure as least as much enhancement for the environment as detraction from it.
I come finally to the broader national arguments of those who say that they are against the Bill because, it is said, we already have too much port capacity. Indeed we do, but, sadly, it is in the wrong place. One of the many mistakes that I made as a transport Minister was to put ·45 million into the development of Seaforth dock in Liverpool and a further ·40 million into the new west dock in Bristol. Although I wish both those ports well, I have to say that, looking back, it was an investment that would have been better placed in those areas of the country that could get a greater share of the large ocean-going trade and the container trade that is so important to the country.
The central point about containers is that, carried as they are, on the big ships, they tend to be distributed within the country no longer by small vessels putting into every individual haven. How I wish that were still true. They are landed in one mother port and then carried round the country on the rail and motorway networks. That is the reality of containers. More and more we find that the great world-girdling container lines seek to stop in only one port in north-west Europe, and that port tends more and more to be Rotterdam. As a consequence, about one fifth of all the containers handled today in Rotterdam are destined for, or originate from, Britain.
Unless we can allow a modern port such as Felixstowe to develop, we shall find more and more that we are adding to the costs of our exports and imports because of the extra charge made for shunting those boxes back and forth across the North sea and then transloading them at considerable expense on to the large ocean-going vessels in Rottendam.

Sir Julian Ridsdale: When my hon. Friend says that ports such as Ipswich should be allowed to develop, I agree with him. But will he couple it with Harwich as well?

Mr. Griffiths: I am sure that Harwich is expanding and will continue to expand. As long as it has my hon. Friend as its Member of Parliament, its success is ensured. It may be that he will wish to tell the House that in the course of the debate.
The national argument against this Bill simple does not stand up. I put it to the House that there is, on the one side, the merit of allowing the Bill to proceed and, on the other, there are the very real consequences of the House rejecting it.
Let us suppose that the Bill is refused a Second Reading. The best advice that I can obtain suggests a


number of consequences. First, half the shippers at present using Felixstowe and planning to expand their trade there have said that they would switch their main trade to continental ports. I have explained why. They need to have access to the large ocean-going vessels.
Secondly, if we reject the Bill, there will be the immediate loss of ·30 million or ·40 million of new construction work in the Felixstowe port area. There will be the consequential loss of millions of pounds worth of orders for cranes and other port machinery, all of which, since Felixstowe is a "Buy British" company, will mean the loss of British jobs. Beyond that, there will be the loss of another 2,400 jobs which Felixstowe expects to be created indirectly in the Ipswich-Felixstowe area.
It is in that connection that I want to deal with some of the objections that the hon. Member for Ipswich made in the local press. The district officer of the Transport and General Workers Union for Ipswich is Mr. Peter Partridge. He wrote to the hon. Gentleman the other day strongly objecting to his using phrases such as
Ipswich becoming a ghost port
if Felixstowe was allowed to expand. Mr. Partridge wrote:
As Felixstowe has prospered, so has Ipswich, and the two ports are not in competition. The fact that Felixstowe has the capacity to handle large container vessels means that there are more of the feeder-type using the Harwich estuary and of course some of those find Ipswich the more convenient port.
The convener continues:
Another point that you should be aware of is that about 25 per cent. at present of employees at Felixstowe are living in Ipswich and these are, or were, possible Labour voters.
I quote a final comment about Ipswich made by Mr. Brendan Lamb, the chairman of the Transport and General Workers Union shop stewards throughout East Anglia. Referring to Ipswich and its recent number of redundancies, he writes:
The news of these redundancies comes against a background in which our local Member of Parliament is effectively attempting to push new trade away from the region's ports by blocking the development of Felixstowe. Yet news of jobs losses at Ipswich shows how badly we require this further development in order to secure extra trade and to guarantee the economic well being of the local economy. I am amazed that a Labour MP should actively oppose expansion at the port of Felixstowe, which will create a very large number of new jobs in a region where unemployment figures have doubled in the past five years.
I am sure that that quotation from the statement of Mr. Brendan Lamb of the Transport and General Workers Union will be taken seriously by Opposition Members.
There would be further consequence if the House denied the Bill a Second Reading. We should be sending out a message to the watching world that the British Parliament was not even prepared to consider in detail the expansion of our most successful and profitable port. None of the economic arguments would even get to be considered in detail by the House. None of the navigational safeguards which Felixstowe has offered to Ipswich and to Harwich would even be examined. Nor would the ecological and environmental objections ever be thrashed out, as the Opposed Private Bill Committee would want to thrash them out, so that some balance could be found whereby the environment in that area was enhanced as well as subjected to expansion.
I repeat the undertaking that I gave at the outset of my remarks. The promoters are prepared to meet any reasonable conditions that the Opposed. Private Bill

Committee may wish to add to the safeguards for the environment, to the legitimate navigational interests of the ports of Harwich and Ipswich and to the wishes of the local authorities in respect of planning matters. I beg the House not to kill this Bill on Second Reading. It is a good Bill —good for Felixstowe, good for East Anglia and good for the British economy.

Mr. Ken Weetch: I thank the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) for a strong and clear statement of the case, which is what I would have expected from him. I oppose the Bill for constituency reasons and for reasons of general principle.
The hon. Member has tried to hit me with everything except the stool on which I sit and has accused me, among other things, of not knowing what my constituency interest is. I invite him to examine my political record in East Anglia, which will show that I know very well what the constituency interest is. I have been the principal objector to the Bill, both inside and outside the House, and this Second Reading debate gives me an opportunity to say why I object to it, and to put my views firmly on record. My first major objection is the potentially lethal effect of the Bill on the performance and commercial prosperity on the port of Ipswich.
Before I deal with the brass tacks, I shall make two preliminary points. First, I am not per se opposed to Felixstowe providing more competition through an expansion in its capacity, because it would be unreasonable for me to be so. That is investment, and the ebb and flow of commerce, and the port of Ipswich and anyone else has to face that fact. Secondly, nor am I objecting to the expansion of Felixstowe as a free enterprise port. I have no ideological objections to that. I am a strong supporter of the mixed economy in the ports industry. I am prepared to put on record the fact that, through managerial efficiency and good industrial relations, the port of Felixstowe has set what is in many ways of an excellent example to others.
I make it clear that I am objecting to the particular expansion brought about by the Bill, for particular reasons. I clear up one point. Ipswich has grown substantially in recent years, not because of the crumbs that have fallen from Felixstowe's table, but for a group of reasons, including our geographical proximity to Europe, our efficiency and the skill with which it serves its economic hinterland. Although it is the case that Ipswich and Felixstowe statistically have expanded together, the relationship between the two sets of figures is not necessarily causal. That is the oldest logical fallacy in the world.
I am willing to admit that in the trade that has occurred in this part of Britain there is a market square effect. Felixstowe has expanded for good reasons, and there has been a spin-off effect in Ipswich, but predominantly it is the case that Ipswich has expanded for a particular group of reasons. However, even if I conceded that Ipswich and its expansion were geared to Felixstowe and the expansion that is taking place there, that would not alter my argument, because the future is different from the past and we are now in a new and critical situation. Ipswich faces the Felixstowe march upstream, and that has altered the situation substantially.
As an operational port, Ipswich is situated at the head of the Orwell estuary and is approached by 9 miles of


estuarial channel. It is naturally concerned by any developments that take place at the estuarial mouth, and this is precisely what will happen if the Bill is passed, as it extends the port of Felixstowe further into the Orwell estuary to Fagbury point and into the designated jurisdiction area of Ipswich port authority. This will involve a major extension of quay face and the installation of major cargo handling capacity.
An important point has not been resolved, but I wish that it had been, because then I could leave all this section out of my speech. It would save me a lot of hassle if the matter had been resolved, but I am sorry to say that it has not been. Serious navigational difficulties will arise if the Bill is passed, and I took professional opinion on the point this afternoon as I prepared notes for my speech. Large ships will be engaged in berthing and unberthing manoeuvres, and when these manoeuvres take place the approaches to and the exit from the Orwell will be severely restricted.
To underline the point I shall quote from a document, not because this is the only opinion that I have taken, but because it puts the point better than I could put it. The quotation comes from the Ipswich port authority's observations to the Department of Transport, which says:
Admiralty Chart No 2693 has superimposed upon it Felixstowe's proposed quay line from the Bill's deposited plan, and an 1800 feet diameter turning circle, which Felixstowe's management consider to be necessary for manoeuvring the smaller vessels using the proposed quay. Large vessels not capable of being turned without grounding would be turned further down stream and towed to or from the berths. It can be readily seen from the chart that these actions would totally block the approaches to Ipswich whilst the manoeuvre was being carried out. Since all but the smallest vessels leaving Ipswich are unable to turn in the Orwell there would be considerable disruption and delay occasioned to avoid a close quarters situation developing off the proposed berths.
In the face of this, Ipswich's defences against what is a potential calamity will disappear. Part VIII of the Ipswich Dock Act 1971—I could quote other dock Acts in support—gives Ipswich clear power to keep our navigation lines clear. This will be amended and cease to give us authority, and thus protection. Such amendments will cause direct damage and may cause serious complications. I could cut down all this complicated argument by saying that if the Bill is passed it will succeed in impeding the access to, and exit from, Ipswich from time to time, causing us considerable difficulty.
I wish that this were not so. If I could negotiate out of that I would, but I cannot, which is why I am making this point. We shall be strangled, and I am the constituency Member responsible. It is my obligation to stand up in the House and say so.

Mr. Roger Stott: This is a crucial point. My hon. Friend will recall that I visited the port of Ipswich two or three weeks ago and had conversations with the chief executive of the port. He led me to believe that if he were to get a written guarantee that traffic in the river would not be altered and would not cause problems to the Ipswich port, some of his fears might be allayed. I understand that that indemnification was not forthcoming. Therefore, what my hon. Friend is saying about the problems of navigation in the Orwell estuary is a point which the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) should take seriously.

Mr. Weetch: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. That is so. I do not want to give too much

detail on this matter, but my most recent correspondence relating to the amendment to put navigation matters into the hands of the Harwich harbour board shows that it in no way meets our objections. I wish that it did.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Is not the central point this, that at the moment large vessels can get into that part of the estuary only at certain points of the tide, but with the deepening and widening there will be access for large vessels throughout the 24-hour period? Consequently, with the scenario described by the hon. Gentleman, there would not be many blockages compared with the problems that now exist.

Mr. Weetch: I do not accept that, though I wish that I could. I have had protracted and intensive discussions with professional pilotage opinion. The problems will remain. Frankly, they will remain to such an extent that they will threaten our commercial viability.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: My hon. Friend will be aware that the consequences of widening and deepening any estuary can never be guaranteed. In many instances, when there has been deepening and widening, it has had a disastrous effect on other parts of the river. Therefore, there is no way that the argument can be put with any certainty that deepening and widening will not have an effect on the river in other places.

Mr. Weetch: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. It has been said to me that the alteration to the estuary might upset its natural balance. No research has taken place. We have no hard and fast guarantee as to what will happen. It is unpredictable. I cannot accept the possibility of commercial risks for Ipswich, or the unpredictability. We should have reasonable certainty about the matter, but there is no way that we can have it.
Ipswich has expanded considerably. It is the fourth container port in the kingdom. It is the first port in the kingdom for short sea containers. It leads the East Anglian grain trade. We are the first in Britain for wheat, and in the top six for all grains. We are efficient. We turn the ships round fast, and we have an excellent record in industrial relations. All that is now fatally threatened by the Bill. That is why I am opposing it.
The timing of our largest 10,000-tonne grain ships to clear the estuary at maximum permitted draft is critical in tidal terms. In addition, on short sea container movements, our efficiency has given rise to a very fast turn round so that ships can be used on a 24-hour cycle. For port users, that means a considerable economy in the intensive use of ships. That, too, may be irreparably damaged. Traffic will decline and move elsewhere. The Bill will cripple the port and threaten jobs. There is no point in creating jobs in Felixstowe if one destroys them in Ipswich. That is one of the central points in the matter.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds gave the game away when he said in the Ipswich Evening Star 10 November 1984:
Ipswich can do well with specialised cargoes.
That may be correct, but what the hon. Gentleman was saying was, "Do not worry. Ipswich can always become a jobbing port for odds and ends." I am not willing to face such a future.
The area in which the Bill will allow Felixstowe to expand has been officially declared to be of outstanding natural beauty. It was designated as such in 1970. There is serious concern and abject despondency among the


environmental organisations in Suffolk, as well as nationally, which have petitioned against the Bill. They are alarmed by it because they realise how serious it is. A whole range of environmental organisations have petitioned against the Bill, and I have seen just about all of them. Critical and serious consequences stem from the Bill. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Suffolk Trust for Nature Conservation, the Council for the Protection of Rural England and the Suffolk Preservation Trust are all against it. Therefore, the matter is important.
The area is also a proposed site of special scientific interest. It is the intention of the Nature Conservancy Council to identify the area as one of special scientific interest. However, the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company objects to that. In his speech, the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds made several environmental points. I wonder how valid they are. I have heard one environmentalist in Suffolk, who is not even a Labour voter, but a Conservative voter, saying that if one has to plant half a million trees to soften the environmental consequences, obviously the effect will be devastating. However, I am anticipating my point, which I shall now reach in small steps.
The area is a feeding and resting ground for certain species of birds of national and international importance. I am told by the RSPB that at least four species occur in internationally important numbers and another seven in nationally important numbers. There will also be a substantial visual intrusion. The hon. Gentleman will admit that those dangers are present, so let us come to the crux of the argument.
Two questions must be asked and answered. The first is whether, despite the development, that precious and irreplaceable asset can be saved and adequately protected. The second question is wider. It is whether the development is consistent with the Government's stated intentions towards areas of outstanding natural beauty, made on 29 July 1982. They said that any commercial development had to be of overriding national interest and there had to be no alternative sites. I should like to examine both propositions.

Mr. William Cash: The hon. Gentleman mentioned national interest. Perhaps he has overlooked the point that it is a proven national interest. Does he agree that the appropriate time for considering the matters of proof will be before the Opposed Private Bill Committee, to which the Bill will be referred?

Mr. Weetch: I accept the substance of that point. In Committee such points can be argued in detail and contested one by one. We are arguing about the principle. I wish to put certain broad points to the House.
First, in October 1984 the county planning officer of Suffolk submitted a report to the county council, which it subsequently ignored. However, the report was quite devastating about the environmental impact. It made two main points, which I shall summarise. It referred, first, to the landscape impact and, secondly, to the ecological implications. Paragraph 9.2.6 said:
The scale and extent of the proposed development is such that it cannot effectively be screened and at the same time enable the Orwell Estuary to retain the quality of landscape worthy of designation as an AONB.

That is not an argument of one of the participants in the issue. That is an independent assessment in a high-calibre report.
An additional 500,000 trees would not be able to prevent the vertical intrusion of the additional cranes nor the additional glare of security lighting and the noise of night operations. The ecological implications are even more critical. If most of the inter-tidal mud flats and the salt marsh are lost, the supporting conditions will be lost for much of the ecological life which I have outlined.
It seems that the Government are seeking votes from the environmental lobby. We have seen a distinct green edge on the Government in recent months. We now wish to examine the colour of their environmental money. A statement of policy was made in a written answer on 29 July 1982. It read:
Confirmation of an area of outstanding natural beauty designation order confers formal recognition by the Government that the natural beauty of the landscape in the area identified is of national importance: and that we expect this to be reflected by local authorities in the preparation of structure and local plans and exercise of development control.
The Government agree with the Countryside Commission's view that, in general, it would be inconsistent with the aims of designation to permit the siting of major industrial and commercial development in AONBs. Only proven national interest and lack of alternative sites can justify any exception.
In dealing with areas of outstanding natural beauty the Government gave their
continued commitment … to their safeguarding in the years ahead.—[Official Report, 29 July 1982; Vol. 28, c. 709–10.] The written answer stated that any proposal to disturb and invade areas of outstanding natural beauty would receive "rigorous examination". I wonder how rigorous the examination will be in this instance. We are debating the test case for the entire policy.
If these issues are the criteria, the argument of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds falls. There are other port sites where this form of development could take place. There is excess capacity in the docks industry. Expert opinion suggests that there will be excess capacity, especially in the container trades, as far ahead as one can see. There is an alternative across the other side of the river at Bath Side bay. If press comment is reliable, a deep sea container port will be developed at Bath Side bay. That will rival Felixstowe itself. If trade does not increase in the way that is suggested by some, we shall have two massive white elephants facing each other across the estuary. It has yet to be demonstrated to me that the real increase in traffic will be such that it will absorb the present excess capacity and the potential capacity of the ports industry.
I have no doubt that the development will benefit the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company. I can understand a commercial company trying to increase its share of the trade, but to argue that that is in the national interest is another matter. That is an argument which I reject.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) know much more about the issues lying behind the proposed development than I do. However, will my hon. Friend confirm that the Bath Side Bay Development Act 1972 provided for substantial construction works in the nature of port development? Does he recall that as recently as 1980 a Conservative Transport Minister extended the provisions within that measure until 1992 so that the proposed developments could be proceeded with in due course? Are these matters not pertinent to the debate?

Mr. Weetch: Indeed, they are extremely relevant. I thank my hon. Friend for raising them in the course of my speech.
The third section of my speech will be directed to national port considerations. The arguments involved are not simple and the complexities are many. Difficult projections and predictions are entailed. However, it is obvious to everyone concerned that the issues thrown up by the debate are very much wider than those involving the Orwell estuary. The central argument is the contention that there is an overriding national interest that the development should take place. If that is so, we are thrown back to two more questions.
Is the likely growth in deep-sea container traffic likely to justify this increase in dock capacity, bearing in mind that there is surplus capacity in other ports, many of which are capable of further expansion? Is there an advantage in the Felixstowe development from the standpoint of attracting real trade growth, as opposed to taking trade from other ports on the south and east coasts?
We are in complicated statistical and commercial waters. The research that I have done myself and that which I have had done for me highlight the difficulties of predicting future volumes and flows of traffic. The difficulties are by no means inconsiderable. I shall quote from two pieces of independent research. The first quotation comes from a report from the marine transport centre of the University of Liverpool. The second comes from a piece of research that was undertaken for Suffolk county council by the former secretary of the National Ports Council, Mr. K. A. Heathcote.
The conclusions of these two independent assessments are remarkably similar on principle. They state that while traffic in Felixstowe has grown at a rapid rate, this has stemmed largely from a two-pronged process of substitution. Felixstowe has taken a lot of traffic formerly passing through other ports. This in turn has been related to the technical switch to containerisation and the geographical switch to the east coast. This has led to a high rate of growth, but it is largely a once-and-for-all substitution growth and it will not recur because the underlying factors promoting it are losing their intensity.
If we examine commercial statistics for the major cargo groups spread over near, short and deep-sea containers from 1967 until 1984—I choose 1967 because that is roughly when the container deep-sea trades started—certain features are brought sharply into focus. First, Felixstowe is primarily a deep-sea container port, and the Bill aims to extend its deep-sea facilities. From 1967 until 1984 commerce in manufactures has expanded substantially for both exports and imports. However, the deep-sea trade has scarcely participated in that growth. In 1984, the volume of deep-sea exports was above the 1967 level by only about 500,000 tonnes. It was even below the 1976 figures. The trend in the deep-sea container section of manufacturing commerce is downwards. If that continues, the demand for deep-sea container facilities will decline further.
The second most important cargo group is foodstuffs. In 1984 this section had 27 per cent. of deep-sea container traffic. Although the figures are more difficult to interpret, they show a decline from deep-sea areas. The position is similar for basic materials and fuels. Deep-sea containerisation is still only 13 per cent. of the total and is unlikely to grow.
The main conclusion is that in cargo areas which are most likely to grow there has already been a great deal of deep-sea container penetration, which is unlikely to grow much further.
Side by side with that, however, is the fact that the deep-sea container trades of the United Kingdom are not short of port capacity. The present expansion through the Trinity terminal at Felixstowe gives the company a further two berths, while the one before the House into Trimely marshes provides a further three. That will be five extra berths.
It is difficult to see how that can be used to capacity without taking over most of the deep-sea traffic of the United Kingdom. I should not be surprised if that were not the aim. Even if it takes a fraction of the traffic, Felixstowe's expansion will be at the expense of other ports, where there will be a loss of traffic, a decline and redundancies. That is what will happen in East Anglia, and Ipswich will be the first casualty, which is why I am on my feet.
Given the massive efforts that the Government have made, and the substantial financial investment that they have had to make to reduce capacity to the demand, surely it is lunacy to create more capacity at a time of excess. The Felixstowe expansion serves no national need. I challenge the Bill's advocates to demonstrate that it is in the national interest, because they cannot do so. The expansion serves the interests of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company and Trinity college, which is one of the grasping landlords that we face in East Anglia.
The case will be that it is in the national interest, but some people are involved, not in the national interest, but to make a fast buck for commercial reasons. I oppose the Bill and advise the House to reject it.

Sir Julian Ridsdale: The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) based his case on three contentions. The first related to environmental disadvantage. I shall not reply to that except to say, as a keen wild fowler in East Anglia, that he exaggerates his case and fears.
Secondly, he contended that the proposed extension of the port would take trade from other United Kingdom ports. He does not appreciate the real reason for the extension of the port facility. In Harwich we hope to have the port facilities extended in exactly the same way. We see the need to try and get the trade which at present goes to Rotterdam into the container ports of Harwich and Felixstowe. That would help our balance of payments. Goods would not have to be offloaded at Rotterdam and brought across the North sea in small ships. This is the reason for the dredging which is taking place in both Harwich and Felixstowe, but I shall not go into the matter in detail because it can be dealt with in Committee.
The Bill serves the national interest. Trade will not be taken from other ports, but we shall compete with the main Continental port of Rotterdam. We wish to save our balance of payments by deepening the harbours on both the Harwich and Felixstowe sides of the river. I am delighted at the spoil from dredging at both Felixstowe and Harwich. and that in Harwich we shall also have more berths. I do not oppose what Felixstowe is doing because it is in the national interest. I know that Felixstowe will not oppose us when we extend our port in Harwich.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of navigational difficulties and the fear of navigation. I have consulted pilots in


Harwich, and my information is that navigational difficulties are not great. Obviously, there will be difficulties, but with dredging and the expansion of the facilities, there will constantly be a 24-hour turn round. That will enable the traffic to come to the port of Ipswich. The hon. Gentleman exaggerated the fears about that.

Mr. Loyden: I wish to return to a point I made previously. With all due respect to pilots, they act on the hydrographic surveys that take place on a river, and their information is based on them. Pilots cannot predict the consequences of changes in a port, which alter the meandering of a river or its siltation, or create new banks. No one can foresee that. In a sense that means that our approach to rivers is unscientific. The pilots are not in a position to say that there will be no problems because they cannot know until extremely detailed surveys have been carried out, and, even then, there is no guarantee of the consequences.

Sir Julian Ridsdale: I am sure that the pilots in Harwich and Felixstowe are well aware of the hon. Gentleman's point. Harwich will be the navigational authority and its pilots will decide when and where the turning will happen. Felixstowe has offered priority of passage to and from Ipswich. The point about pilotage has been exaggerated. With the good common sense that prevails in the port of Stour and the Orwell, there will be free passage of ships up the Orwell.
Ever since I became a Member there has been cooperation between the haven ports and we have had good discussions about many matters. I deplore the fact that I must come to the House to argue with the hon. Member for Ipswich. I am sure that with good sense we can find an agreement. I have every confidence that the pilots and the Harwich pilotage authority, which is co-operating with Ispwich, can achieve the objectives.
Opponents of the Bill raised the point about over-investment in capacity. I ask them to look where that over-investment has taken place in Liverpool and Bristol. As the Member for Harwich, I have taken part in many debates about investment policy in Committee on legislation to deal with the nationalisation of the ports. Each time I have said that our investment was in the wrong place. It was a complete waste of money to invest in the west coast, especially as we were to join the European community, where the trade would be. I ask those who oppose the Bill to consider where our trade by sea is. It is in the Thames estuary, the Channel and the North sea.

Mr. Stott: Is the hon. Gentleman denying that there is over-capacity in port facilities in the United Kingdom? I ask him to remember that Southampton, which is a major container port, was almost taken out because of a protracted industrial dispute—hardly anything moved in the port for almost six months — but the enormous capacity that it normally undertakes was absorbed by Tilbury and other British ports. The hon. Gentleman, with his knowledge of the ports industry, cannot say that there is no over-capacity when we all know that there is.

Sir Julian Ridsdale: That is history. We are talking now about reality and the challenge ahead. Harwich and Felixstowe are dredging the river because they wish to take trade from the port of Rotterdam. It will be in the national

interest, and we can do it if the Bill gets a Second Reading. That will not only cause Felixstowe to expand, but Felixstowe and the Government I hope, will support an expansion at Bath Side, Harwich, as well.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) on his excellent presentation of the case, and I have no hesitation in supporting the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: I shall speak only briefly, because on such occasions it is a courtesy in the House to recognise that hon. Members more acquainted with the area concerned should have most of the time that is available to make important points on behalf of their constituents.
Private Bills are always matters of significance and are sometimes much more controversial than public Bills. From the outset, they express the determination of special interests; and, because they do so, they impinge immediately on the interests of others in the area. Therefore, there are conflicts, and hon. Members on both sides of the House are often divided because of the interests that are being expressed.
The Bill seeks to extend the limits of the Felixstowe port authority north-west into the Orwell estuary, which is under the jurisdiction of the Ipswich port authority. The latter is understandably worried, because not only will the dock workers' employment scheme not apply under the Bill, but the Felixstowe port authority will have jurisdiction over and responsibility for making regulations for motor traffic on the dock roads and in all places within the limits defined in the Bill. Therefore, if the powers and responsibilities accorded to Ipswich port authority in many Acts and orders between 1852 and 1979 will cease to apply, this Second Reading debate should contain a word of caution. In Standing Committee, we must at least examine the details so that the promoters' case can be seen to be proved.
We all recognise that facet of the business of the House. The Standing Committee stage of a public Bill often presents Second Reading opportunities, but a private Bill does the opposite. Those who are selected to serve on the Standing Committee must operate in an almost quasi-judicial role to ensure that the case is proved. I am the chairman of the departmental transport committee of the parliamentary Labour party, and it worries me that, on such matters of principle, hon. Members who are not affected by the tides of local opinion should advise the House on how best to consider such Bills.
We must ask whether there is an alternative. I referred earlier in a short intervention to the Bath Side Bay Development Act 1972. The Committee which dealt with that Bill examined in detail areas for possible redevelopment and reconstruction in the Orwell area. That examination persuaded the Secretary of State for Transport, who must have considered the matter with great care, that the period for possible extensions and port developments should be increased to 1992. Therefore, the Government intended this to be a site for port development that would not adversely affect the jurisdictional responsibilities of the Ipswich port authority. It that is the case, the Standing Committee should consider that aspect of the problem carefully. If there is an alternative site for development that will avoid placing Ipswich in the position which the Bill seems to place it—of providing


a buffer zone between itself and the open sea because of the proposed development at Felixstowe — and Felixstowe can still have the same trading advantages, the Standing Committee will have a great opportunity to decide whether the case for the Bill is proven.
When a local authority such as Ipswich borough council, working in close harmony with its port authority, believes—

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: It does not oppose the Bill.

Mr. Leadbitter: I stand to be corrected, because I do not come from the area, but if Ipswich borough council is working in close conjunction with the Ipswich port authority in their common interest to preserve their jurisdiction rights, we must consider how best to judge their position. As I understand it, the Ipswich port authority has discharged its responsibilities with considerable efficiency.

Mr. Weetch: Perhaps I could clarify that point for my hon. Friend. Ipswich borough council and the Ipswich port authority are petitioners against the Bill. The entire council—Conservative and Labour—opposes the Bill, so this is not a party political matter.

Mr. Leadbitter: That is the great advantage of hon. Members from the area doing their work—

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I have just taken advice, and I can tell the House that the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) is incorrect. Ipswich borough council and the port authority are not petitioners against the Bill.

Mr. Leadbitter: This is an occasion when those of us who have been in the House for a long time can sit back and allow a matter to be corrected in the interests of comprehension. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and to my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich. I cannot lose, and am trying to be helpful from a distance.
I am informed that the Ipswich port authority has carried out its responsibilities under the Acts and orders that have prevailed for more than a century, in that it has provided good safety provisions, excellent navigation and, above all, an understanding of a developing social consideration—leisure pursuits on the river. There are some 1,700 pleasure craft on the river. The port authority has been able to combine commercial and leisure activities in such a way as to avoid conflict.
The records of Ipswich and the Felixstowe port authority are good. No one quarrels with their reputations, but my advice to the House is that as one, in its exuberance, wants to extend into the jurisdiction of the other, it is the responsibility of the House of Commons not to be satisfied merely by good Second Reading speeches. It must add a small caveat that if the Bill goes to Standing Committee, the Committee must ask itself whether the Bill's promoters have proved their case. That is what we should demand of the Standing Committee.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: It is a curious experience for me as a former Clerk of the House to hear a member of the Chairman's Panel inform the House that a private Bill, if it receives a Second Reading, will go to a Standing Committee. It will not. It will go to an Opposed Private Bill Committee.

Mr. Leadbitter: It was merely a slip of the tongue. It is not a great debating point.

Mr. Rhodes James: The hon. Gentleman repeated the remark several times.
The debate is of personal interest to me and to many hon. Members on both sides of the House, because Felixstowe is linked in our memory with our late colleague, Keith Wickenden, who was a special and remarkable Member of the House who spoke seldom, but when he did it was with great impact. His early death was a great loss to the House and the country.
I have to declare a direct constituency interest. When the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) referred to Trinity college going for a quick buck, I thought that he was referring to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck). However, I then realised that the hon. Gentleman was making an observation about the college and my constituency, with which I should like to deal immediately. Trinity college is the owner of the land. If the Bill were to be passed, the income would be substantial, but no individual fellow of Trinity or the college will benefit because the college is a major benefactor of poorer colleges, the university as a whole and, above all, foreign students, in particular from Third-world countries. Any revenue derived from the Bill will be directly and entirely devoted to the cause of higher education in Cambridge and East Anglia. I hope that that deals with that nonsense.
I should like to refer to a book by Segal Quince and Partners called "The Cambridge Phenomenon." It is not, I hasten to add, the long and eagerly awaited biography of myself. It relates to what has happened in Cambridge over the past eight years, which happens to be the period during which I have represented Cambridge. In Cambridge, ten years ago, there were 100 technology and scientific companies, and now there are 150. Trinity college's science park has been very much the result of the investment in Felixstowe, which the hon. Member for Ipswich so derides. When I was elected to represent Cambridge eight years ago, the park had one firm employing fewer than 40 people. Today, there are more than 40 firms employing over 1,400 people.
Last year, three new companies were formed in the city of Cambridge every month. Segal Quince and Partners, analysing why that was so, said that a major factor was communications
to increase the accessibility of Cambridge to most parts of the country, London and the east coast port of Felixstowe being probably the most valuable connections.
The authors further stated:
The Cambridge phenomenon now has firm foundations and substantial potential for sustained future development … it represents one of the very few spontaneous growth centres in a national economy that has been depressed for all of a decade — and certainly the only one where growth is being led by high technology industry, and indigenous and small companies at that.
In that process—communications and exports for old as well as new industries—East Anglia has been crucial. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) has emphasised, Felixstowe is a success story. The proposals before the House will directly create 3,000 new jobs in port and ancillary services.
The hon. Member for Ipswich talked about the environment. As the House will be aware, for several years I was a senior consultant on the environment for the United Nations. I am a conservationist. I have studied the


proposals made by Trinity college and the Bill, and they are remarkable—500,000 trees, careful landscaping, and the skilful use of the river frontage.
The hon. Member for Ipswich may not be aware of the fact that I know the river well. I have sailed on it since I was a child. It is one for which I feel strongly. I also feel strongly about the local environment. To go as far as he did about a scheme which covers one third of a square mile and only half a mile of 22 miles of rather grotty shoreline is carrying his argument too far.
I believe in the Bill not merely because of my constituency interest but because of my East Anglian interest. It is an area which needs further opportunities for exports, initiative and inventiveness. We in Cambridge and East Anglia have proved, as Felixstowe has proved, that if other parts of the country were to follow our example, it would be greatly in the national interest.
If the Bill were to be denied a Second Reading, it would be an act of cynical hostility to people who have demonstrated what they can do, what they have done and what they will do in future.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Those hon. Members who have so far spoken are directly involved and almost all politically based in the East Anglian region and I am not. I hesitated therefore before I decided to speak, but I do so for a number of reasons. It is fashionable nowadays to declare a non-pecuniary interest as well as a pecuniary one. I do so as a member of the council of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and one who is deeply worried about the environment.
I can well understand the anxieties of Members who are interested in generating economic activities in their areas. I have a great deal of sympathy for that approach because we desperately need to stimulate economic activity in my area as well.
I am slightly familiar with the locality. I served in that part of the country in the Air Force a long time ago. I was there on holiday last summer when I visited Minsmere and Havergate Island. I realised what a tremendous tourist attraction exists in that delightful part of Britain. I am as anxious as anyone in Suffolk, and perhaps more than some Conservative Members, that the tourist potential of that attractive area shall not be destroyed for short-term economic advantage.
One point which has not yet been made in the debate is that this port development may be embarrassed by the establishment of the Channel tunnel. When the Under-Secretary of State for Transport replies to the debate I hope that he will refer to the very substantial surplus of port capacity in Britain. One imagines that Conservatives in the Southampton area would expect the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) to participate in the debate. I make that point not merely in order to refer to the existing surplus of port capacity but to reflect upon the effect on Felixstowe, Harwich, Ipswich and many other ports when the cross-channel link is established. It surprises me that this point has not been made because every Conservative Member would vote for the establishment of a Channel link. If Conservative Members are prepared to vote for a Channel link today, one imagines

that they recognise the impact that it would have and that therefore such a massive expansion as is suggested at Felixstowe may not be necessary.
I must also emphasise that conservation bodies would describe the area which is to be destroyed as an area which is rather more important than an area of unattractive mud flats, which seems to be the accepted description of Conservative Members. Other parts of East Anglia may be more attractive and deserving of concern, but those mud flats are absolutely vital. Mud flats are becoming more vital to wildfowl as each year passes because of the scale of the destruction of wetlands in western Europe. The British Isles have made a real contribution to the destruction of those wetlands.
Conservation bodies in Britain are very pleased indeed that in recent years the Government have made repeated and emphatic claims to be the party which deserves the support of those who are interested in green issues. During the last 12 months there have been repeated claims in the media that the conservationist must associate himself with the Conservative party. It will be interesting to hear how the Under-Secretary of State for Transport defends, if he is to defend, this further destruction of the habitat. The Conservative party claims that it is concerned about green issues, the ecology and the environment, but it has done very little indeed to assist such issues and on occasion after occasion it has absolutely blocked the advancement of the conservation causes which the green lobby has espoused.
The Ramblers Association wrote to me last week about this matter. It pointed out that almost every conservation body in Britain—certainly the conservation bodies in East Anglia—is very much opposed to this development. It points out in a splendid paragraph that the Government's policy on major developments in such areas was set out by the Secretary of State for the Environment in July 1982 and that it would be inconsistent with the aims of designating such areas to permit such development unless there is a proven national need and a lack of alternative sites. That policy has always been thought to command comprehensive and all-party support. If there is to be a departure from that policy, I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will devote sufficient time to defending any departure from that policy. If there is to be such a departure, the Under-Secretary must understand that the irritation and anger that has been generated in the ranks of conservation bodies by the Government's approach and attitude in recent years will become even greater.
Since a substantial number of Conservative Members are listening to the debate, many of whom may still be seeking to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think it would be wrong if I did not express my deep regret, which I hope all hon. Members who are listening to the debate share, that, despite their so-called concern for green issues which are frequently expressed by the Liberal party and the Social Democratic party, not a single member of those parties is present for the debate. It suggests to me that when the voters of Suffolk decide that they have had enough of the party of the hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) my hon. Friend who now so ably represents Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) will be leading an army back to the House after the next general election. The absence of the alliance parties and their negligence is utterly deplorable. I should have liked them to be in the Chamber to witness the embarrassment of Conservative Member after Conservative Member seeking to defend the destruction of a vitally important international wetland on


the grounds that it comprises only a few acres of mudflats and that it does not really matter and seeking to ignore the reality of the prospects for investment if the Channel tunnel is proceeded with.
I am also reminded that the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds commissioned Dr. Gilman, an eminent and highly qualified person, of the marine transport centre to look at this matter in a fair and unbiased way. I know that the hon. Member for Harwich (Sir J. Ridsdale) assured the House, because of his own interest in wildfowl, that the Bill would not damage wildfowl. The RSPB is a very important, large and highly regarded organisation. No hon. Member would deny that the staff of the RSPB are dedicated and very able people. The evidence that has been given by the society either to the House or to Committees in recent years has always been of the highest quality. Therefore, I trust that no Conservative Member will seek to diminish the powerful argument that is presented in the report provided for the society by Dr. Gilman. His case is formidable.
I do not wish to delay the House — as a Yorkshireman it would be wrong of me to delay the House on an East Anglian matter—but may I summarise what is said by Dr. Gilman:
I do not believe that the expansion of deep sea container port facilities at Felixstowe will serve any important national need, whilst if it creates any local benefits this will be only at the expense of other areas.
This will be at the expense not of Rotterdam but of other areas in this country where investment may already have taken place. Dr. Gilman points out on the other side of the equation that there would be the irreplaceable loss of an area of outstanding natural beauty. In his highly qualified, highly professional assessment, Dr. Gilman finds no evidence to support the conclusions advanced by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) and other Conservative Members.
After studying the evidence presented by Dr. Gilman, which is available to hon. Members and to members of the RSPB, the RSPB made the following points. It has co-petitioned against the Bill, together with the Suffolk Trust for Nature Conservation and a number of other bodies opposing the Bill on nature and landscape conservation grounds, for the following major reasons:
The Nature Conservancy Council intends to notify a large part of the river Orwell and its foreshore as a Site of Special Scientific Interest under section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981"—
an Act which my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), who has so far sat through the debate and who I hope will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, has been seeking to improve. He would have welcomed greater improvement than this Government were prepared to allow. That is to be a site of special scientific interest and the Government have pledged themselves to protect it.
The development site envisaged by the Bill includes a very large part—

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: There seems to be great enthusiasm on the part of Conservative Members to protect sites of special scientific interest in general but when a specific site of special scientific interest is considered, they seem to be very happy to let it go.

Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend is justified in making that remark. I became quite distressed about the Government's

lack of enthusiasm. In February or March 1984 I tabled a Bill with all-party support which would have protected sites of special scientific interest. I had hoped that that Bill would go through on the nod in July, but two or three days before that was due to happen I was told that it was technically deficient, although I had not drafted it. An experienced draftsman had been employed and to this day I have never found out what that technical deficiency was. All I know is that since I tabled that Bill in the late winter, early spring 1984 a substantial number of SSSIs have been destroyed and now we are to see another so badly disfigured as to be made useless for conservation purposes.
That site is included in the SSSI that is proposed here. But the reason for the proposition is that that site is of great importance, particularly as an over-wintering area and a migration stop-over for a substantial number of significant species of wading birds and wildfowl. The hon. Member for Harwich (Sir J. Ridsdale) may imagine that the more common prey species among the wildfowl would not be affected by the Bill, but it is reasonable to assure the House that substantial damage would be done to some important wildfowl species and would mean that we would be failing in our international commitment, a commitment which the Government are supposed to have vigorously and enthusiastically espoused. Six species would be seriously affected.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds assured the House that money will be provided for a bird count. If that is going to be done one would imagine that it would precede the destruction, otherwise one would only be counting the birds and then destroying their habitat. Would people then be prepared to pay for a bird count to see exactly how much havoc they had wrought? Far too much havoc has been wrought on British wetlands, sometimes to provide the extra port capacity that is now lying underused elsewhere.
The estuary is important because, as the Minister will know, the Government recognise the area as a wetland that fulfils the criteria for wetlands of international importance, recognised by parties to the RAMSAR convention. That is important in conservation terms and covers wetlands which are especially relevant as a wild water fowl habitat. The United Kingdom is a signatory to that convention As Britain already seems to be somewhat sluggardly in its response to that international commitment, we must extract from the Minister whether he, with his colleagues, is prepared to allow Britain to disregard yet another international commitment. He must be aware that Britain is a signatory to that convention.
The proposed development would cause serious damage to the feeding and resting grounds of birds which use this important area. I recognise that birds cannot directly provide the sort of funds that Trinity college may be able to give overseas students. That role of Trinity college is a welcome one, although it is a role which the Government should be fulfilling. If the Government will not do so, I welcome, endorse and applaud Trinity college's record. But it is a record that has become necessary because of the Government's attitude towards education.
I went to Suffolk on holiday last year and it is, as I said, very attractive. It is a splendid area to which many more people in Britain should go instead of perhaps joining in rather congested package tours on the Costa Brava, which hold no appeal for me. As the years pass and sense dawns,


so more people in Britain may' wish to visit birds on Havergate island rather than queue for sausage and mash in Benidorm.
If Conservative Members are seriously worried about the economy and the prospects of enhancing commercial activity in Suffolk, they will share my recognition that one of the principal employment creators in Britain is tourism. One of the principal aspects of British tourism, which gives us grounds for confidence, is that our ecology, our natural heritage, our areas of outstanding natural beauty, are important. It may well be that Conservative Members and Trinity college will be happy to make some fairly short-term profit from this development, but in doing so they will probably destroy tourist potential and a much larger number of long-term jobs.
Therefore, this is not just a matter for the birds or for a few people who go out to watch wildlife. Hon. Members should understand that the RSPB has more members than the Conservative party. It probably has more members than all the parties represented in the House now, including the alliance and Nationalist parties. The number of people concerned with conservation, substantial though they are, deserve as much consideration as the profits that might accrue whether they be indirectly to overseas students financed by Trinity college rather than the Government, or to the people who feel that they might get a little job which will last as long as it takes the Channel tunnel to be built.
The Government have an obligation of real importance. They have an obligation to the other areas which could be used rather than see duplication of investment. They have an obligation to the international community and to a convention of importance. They have an obligation to their own legislation which re-established the principle of conservation through the site of special scientific interest. Therefore, they have no alternative but to speak up for the long-term interests of Britain, for the environment, for our natural ecology and for the very case which my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich has so powerfully and cogently argued this evening. In view of all that evidence, despite the effective pleading of Suffolk Members, the House cannot possibly afford a Second Reading to the Bill tonight.

Mr. Tim Yeo: The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) made an important point when he drew attention to the complete absence from the House today of any representative of either the Liberal party or the Social Democratic party. It sits in a curious fashion with their increasingly frantic espousal of the green vote that they have not even managed to have one of their Members present today. That is deplorable, particularly in the light of the great play that their local representatives have made in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) of their concern about Felixstowe. That is not displayed here in Parliament. I dare say that it is the prospect of having to make up their minds on an issue that has prevented them from being here, or perhaps it is a reflection of their prospect of gaining further ground in Suffolk. I hardly think that the county council election results two weeks

ago will be of much hope to the hon. Member for Wentworth or his hon. Friends in the hope that he expressed of a revival of Labour prospects in Suffolk.
The hon. Member for Wentworth said something that I found puzzling. He said that the Conservative party did not seem to be in favour of creating new wetlands. If he had read the press over the weekend he would have seen that we are the party that is spawning wetlands left and right. Whether that will lead to the country being transformed into the land of the wets remains to be seen.
I listened in vain to the speech of the hon. Member for Wentworth for anything that would offer comfort to those who are unemployed and seeking jobs in Suffolk. I listened in vain to the speeches of the hon. Members for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) and for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) for any comfort that could be offered to prospective employees at Felixstowe. Although I readily acknowledge the work which the hon. Member for Ipswich does in his constituency—a neighbouring constituency to mine with which I am familiar—despite his clear knowledge of the views of most of his constituents on most issues, he did not tonight reflect the views or interests of the people of Ipswich. If he were representing any interests tonight, it was the interests of a narrow section of his trade union.
I speak from the viewpoint of someone with a very keen interest in conservation. I have been active in taking up environmental issues, both in the House and elsewhere, and I am strongly opposed to the pursuit of private profit at the expense of conservation and, in particular, of countryside interests. But I also speak from the viewpoint of someone who is passionately concerned about unemployment, and I am particularly anxious to prevent even more jobs from going overseas.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the number of jobs involved in this development may be just about balanced, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) has said, by the number of those lost from, for example, the tourist trade if such features are destroyed?

Mr. Yeo: I do not know how familiar the hon. Gentleman is with the region. I happen to live a few miles away, just the other side of the Orwell estuary. Consequently, I know that there is no prospect of the tourist trade being adversely affected. Happily, that trade is growing in East Anglia, but I should certainly like to see it expand still further. I live in the village of East Bergholt, which is already very popular, and I know that the tourist trade is attracted to all sorts of beautiful areas in East Anglia. However, I do not believe that the proposed area of expansion draws tourists to Suffolk, or, indeed, to East Anglia.
Many of my constituents have made representations to me about the Bill, as many of them live in a place which overlooks the site of the proposed expansion. They have expressed concern about several things, such as navigation, possible damage to the scenic environment, bird life and the possibility that the expansion of Felixstowe is not really needed. I shall touch briefly on each of those four points in turn. I readily understand the anxieties of local yachting enthusiasts, but I think that their fears have been greatly exaggerated. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) has already ably made points that should cover the navigation anxieties of those concerned with leisure craft and access to the port of Ipswich.
Concern about the scenic environment is very much to the fore among those living on the Shotley peninsula. Of course it is a serious matter, because we are talking about an area of outstanding natural beauty. However, I applaud the considerable efforts made by the Felixstowe company to meet the anxieties of local residents about the possible deterioration of their view. I also pay a warm tribute to Geoffrey Parker, the chairman, to the senior staff of the company and to their professional advisers. My contact with them has convinced me that they will take every reasonable step to mitigate any possible damage to the environment. Therefore, I publicly urge my constituents and the residents on the Shotley peninsula to contact the company and to express their anxieties to it. I shall certainly take up these issues on their behalf and will contact the company to ask for a sympathetic consideration of their views. Particular care needs to be taken over the question of the erosion of saltings.
The hon. Member for Ipswich quoted the report of the Suffolk county planning officer, but Suffolk county council had a far more extensive opportunity to consider the report than the House will have. After detailed consideration, the council came down in favour of the Bill.
The third issue, which was mentioned at some length by the hon. Member for Wentworth, concerns bird life and the loss of feeding grounds and wet lands. I understand that there is already a considerable interchange between the Orwell and the Stour. The company's offer to provide additional acreage for habitat on adjacent marshes is a real and important concession.
The fourth issue concerns the need for this expansion. It would seem that Felixstowe embodies just what anyone who favours the mixed economy should be working hard to support. It is a real private enterprise success story. It offers something which the customers clearly want. If the port of Ipswich is as successful, well managed and so on as the hon. Member for Ipswich has said—I accept that it has expanded considerably at a time when Felixstowe has expanded — what does it have to fear from continuing to compete? Is there really an anxiety that the greater efficiency of Felixstowe might in the long term undermine its prospects? If the hon. Gentleman is genuine in his support of the mixed economy, it is hard to understand why he should be anxious at the prospect of further open competition between the ports.
As hon. Members have said, there is a danger that trade will go overseas. The absence of additional facilities at Felixstowe would not help British exporters, and the House should be particularly concerned about them. Last year we had a clear reminder of the strategic importance to this country of the non-scheme ports. The role that Felixstowe played last summer was very important and could be important again if similar circumstances prevailed. Thus, the need for such expansion is well established.
I am also concerned about the possibility of additional lorry traffic. We already have a good link across on the A45, but there is an urgent need for the Al/M1 link to be built. I very much hope that that project will not be delayed unnecessarily in the planning process. That would be most unfortunate. I am also concerned about the Al2, which is now the main link between Felixstowe and London or the south-east. There will be a considerable growth in the amount of traffic going down the Al2 and on to the M25. The road is not by any means adequate, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will convey to his colleagues

in the Department of Transport our concern about the Al2. Not all the right turns have yet been eliminated, and we need more grade-separated junctions on the Al2, a central crash barrier, and so on. All those issues will become more urgent as a result of the expansion at Felixstowe.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Felixstowe dock company should take responsibility for that charge instead of leaving it with the national Exchequer? Many other parts of the country could make claims for improved roads, yet they already have adequate dock facilities and are not asking for two lots of money.

Mr. Yeo: The point is that this tremendous investment in Felixstowe is not costing the public purse a penny. Indeed, £100 million of private capital is about to be invested, with the benefit of creating jobs at Felixstowe. It is a little curious to argue that we should be touching the company for a contribution to public investment. Those problems on our roads exist today, and I mention them only because they will become more urgent in future. Even if the extension does not take place, I shall press the Department of Transport for improvements to the Al2. Indeed, I may well have the support of the hon. Member for Ipswich in that. I am also concerned about the possibility of lorries straying off the main roads and into the small villages. At some stage we may need to consider having designated lorry routes.
Those areas of concern are far outweighed by the job-creating potential of the scheme. At a time of high unemployment, we cannot afford to neglect the opportunity over the medium term to create 1,000 or more jobs in addition to the employment that will be created during the expansion and construction stage. The additional jobs which the scheme could create is almost the same as that provided by the largest employer in my constituency. That company is highly profitable and has excellent industrial relations. If it proposed to close because it was worried about the effects of its business on some birds nearby, there would be a massive outcry, and rightly, because we cannot afford to allow such considerations to weigh so heavily that we ignore opportunities for jobs. Some of the opponents of the Bill appear to suggest that course.
Felixstowe has an excellent record, a superb labour force and a fine history of harmonious industrial relations. I pay tribute to Brendan Lamb, the chief shop steward at Felixstowe, who gave up a considerable amount of lime to discuss his colleagues' anxieties with me. I hope that I do not damn him by mentioning that, but his action is symptomatic of the healthy labour relations there.
Felixstowe is the right place for the development. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) said, the development is in the interests of the work force—existing and potential—of Suffolk and of Britain.

9 pm

Mr. Roger Stott: My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) said that, as a Yorkshirernan, he did not wish to delay the House. As a Lancastrian, I do not wish to delay the House, but it is important to explore the wider port policy issues over which the Minister and I have had some difficulties in the past few weeks.


The proposal by the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company for an expansion of its boundaries is based on the expectation that traffic will tend to grow. It is in the local and national interest to cater for that growth.
The Felixstowe development has grown over the years and Felixstowe provides welcome employment opportunities. The company is effective and go-ahead, but some of the growth and some of the potential growth is the result of a takeover by Felixstowe of traffic which previously passed through other ports. There can be no doubt about that.
Two processes of substitution have been at work in United Kingdom ports in the past 17 years — the takeover of conventional cargoes by containers and unit load systems and a tendency to concentrate in the south-east on Felixstowe and Southampton.
Although that process has created a high growth rate during a period of substitution, it will inevitably level off once the transition is completed. There are therefore two important questions to answer when considering the need for new facilities at Felixstowe. First, what is the underlying rate of growth in national traffic and port services? Secondly, how far has the process of substitution gone?
Felixstowe is predominantly a deep-sea container port. The port has a special reputation for deep-sea container traffic and it proposes to extend that traffic. My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) in his cogent speech, and my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth mentioned Dr. Gilman of the marine transport centre at Liverpool university. I am grateful to Dr. Gilman for supplying an analysis of cargo movement.
Containerisation was started in 1967 and since then a substantial growth of manufactures has taken place. Imports have increased from just over 13 million tonnes to nearly 36 million tonnes and exports from just under 13 million tonnes to nearly 20 million tonnes. However, deep-sea trades taken as a whole scarcely participated in that growth. In 1984, the volume of deep-sea exports at 4,747,000 tonnes was about 500,000 tonnes above the 1967 level and had declined when compared with 1976 levels. Deep-sea imports, while being slightly above the 1967 level at about 7,200,000 tonnes were nevertheless substantially down on the 1976 and 1979 levels. About 39 per cent. of manufactured imports and 49 per cent. of exports were containerised in 1984.
The figures show that, while there has been a steady growth in containerisation, the deep-sea cargo part of the containerisation programme has not grown in the way in which some have tried to demonstrate. The figures supplied by Liverpool university confirm what I already believed.

Mr. William Powell: As this is crucial to the argument, can the hon. Gentleman give the comparable figures for the port of Rotterdam?

Mr. Stott: I do not have those figures. We are concerned about the volume and level of imports and exports in United Kingdom ports, and we must look at the proposed development at Felixstowe in that light. It cannot act in isolation from other ports in the United Kingdom. What happens there, and its potential for development, are bound to have knock-on spin-off effects on other ports.

Those points were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich. My hon. Friend also drew attention to the fact that Ipswich is an important port for the export of grain.
The figures show that there has been relatively little growth in container potential in the deep sea sector. They also show that there is already a high container penetration in the sectors that generate most of the container traffic, and little is to be expected in the way of increases. Given the fact that the container revolution began 17 years ago, that is only to be expected. There appears to be a high degree of agreement about that in the industry.
Currently, the deep sea container trade does not appear to be seriously short of port capacity. There is no evidence of serious congestion at ports, and at some of them there is under-used capacity. For example, Southampton is at least as well suited geographically as Felixstowe to take up any slack in the trade at any particular time.
I have to tell the hon. Member for Harwich (Sir J. Ridsdale), who is no longer in his place, that he thoroughly misunderstood my earlier intervention when I was talking about over-capacity in the industry. It was only last year —it is not history—that there was a major dispute at Southampton and the port was virtually taken out for six months. Other ports coped with Southampton's capacity. There is indisputable evidence that there is over-capacity in our ports, and that any capacity developed is bound to be at the expense of the other ports in the United Kingdom. We have continued to make that point.
I was interested to listen to the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo), who made a fair constituency point about ensuring that the infrastructure is provided if the port facility goes ahead. That is in marked contrast to what his hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) said during the debate on the Ports (Finance) Bill two weeks ago about giving financial assistance to, among other places, Merseyside and London. He represents a municipally owned port, and he said that if Falmouth went ahead—that is another port that could develop in the Channel and become the mother port—he was not prepared to support the provision of massive amounts of public money to provide the infrastructure to service it. He has a more marginal constituency than the hon. Member for Suffolk, South. There is a difference of opinion.
I do not believe that it is right and proper that the taxpayer should facilitate that infrastructure when there are adequate port facilities to meet demand. Southampton has been developed and a great deal of money has been poured into it. It is privatised, and enjoys infrastructure expenditure from the taxpayer. We should not continue to provide port facilities and spend public money to provide the infrastructure to get the goods to such ports at the expense of other ports.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) made an interesting speech. I understand that at one time he was a director of Euro-Canadian Shipholdings. A subsidiary of that company is a company called CAST, which operates out of Ipswich. I understand that when he was a director of that company, the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds took some credit for getting that firm to locate in Ipswich.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: indicated assent.

Mr. Stott: I have with me a letter written to the chief executive to the Port of Ipswich by Mr. Gill, the managing director for the United Kingdom of CAST, in which he says, amongst other things:
I know that you are aware of our concern should the `Felixstowe Bill' be implemented … The investment which CAST, and the Ipswich Port Authority, have made in the Port of Ipswich's new West Bank Terminal runs into many millions of pounds. The reclamation of land, the construction of our Terminal, the purchase of heavy container handling equipment, as well as the office and communications infrastructure, can be counted in high, hard numbers … The major investment in people and equipment was only made after an extensive search for the most suitable port to act as the UK distribution centre for CAST's transatlantic traffic. With experience we discovered that we could supplement this nucleus of traffic, and over the past three years our Ipswich Terminal has grown to include a strong Short-Sea service, as well as the handling of container traffic for other regular lines. Our volume in the current 12 months is likely to be in the region of 60,000 tonnes.
Mr. Gill goes on:
CAST is most unwilling to accept a situation in which the control of ship traffic in and out of Ipswich is effectively in the hands of a competing port. Nor are we satisfied, from a safety viewpoint, with the seeming encroachment of Felixstowe's berths into the mouth of the Orwell river.
The letter continues:
CAST's Ipswich decision was a good one—
the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds was associated with that decision—
for our customers, our people and the IPA. We hope it will remain that way, and that you will do everything possible to protect our mutual interests.
Thus, the company that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds brought, or said he brought, to Ipswich, is now saying that it is fearful about the proposals in the Bill that the hon. Gentleman is now promulgating.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I have no further connection whatever with CAST. Perhaps I should have, but I do not. The point that the hon. Gentleman is missing is that the haven ports grow and prosper together; Felixstowe has benefited Ipswich, and Ipswich has benefited Felixstowe. With an offer from Felixstowe, if Ipswich is concerned about its traffic or navigation, it should discuss the matter because together they can reach agreement.

Mr. Stott: I accept the first point that the hon. Gentleman makes, about them growing together, but there comes a time when one outgrows the other to the other's detriment, and to the national detriment. That is the overriding point that I am making, the point that my party believes to be of great contention.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds spoke of navigation, which is an important issue. In particular, it concerns my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch). The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds and his hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Sir J. Ridsdale) should be aware that I am not entirely satisfied on that matter.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds says that the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company can get together with the Port of Ipswich Authority and that they can agree on some mutually beneficial scheme. I understand from my visit to Ipswich that that port would dearly love to have that in writing — would like some indemnification against its traffic being impeded—because Ipswich has a RORO system that is finely tuned to tidal waters. That involves vessels getting in and out on time. Any delay would upset the balance of that finely tuned system.

I have with me a letter sent by Captain Wiechmann, master of the Cast Salmon, on charter to the CAST line, calling regularly at Ipswich. In that letter, dated 11 February, he said:
From time to time the Cast Salmon has been advised by Harwich radio of large vessels docking or undocking at the Felixstowe Berths. The warnings have been such that a reduction in speed and or liaison with Harwich Radio has overcome a need to come to a dead stop.
No entry in the ship's log has been necessary for these manoeuvres.
The width of the channel off the present Felixstowe berths has allowed room for my ship to pass up or down stream safely whilst larger vessels are mooring or unmooring thus reducing the incidence of delays.
I must express my concern that if the proposed extension of the Felixstowe quays takes place into the narrower section of the River Orwell, then the reduced channel will effectively prevent any possibility of passing whilst vessels are berthing or unberthing at the new quays. The priority presently given to large ships is reluctantly conceded, but in a reduced channel it is evident that severe restrictions on movement will take place.
A sea-going captain who uses the Orwell estuary regularly has written to his employer in those terms setting out the serious difficulties that he foresees if the Bill goes ahead.
I oppose the Bill for the reasons that I have given to the Under-Secretary of State on various occasions. I believe that it flies in the face of any sensible ports policy. The Minister will doubtless claim that he has such a policy, but I rebut that claim because I do not believe that he has any such policy. In my view, any extension of Felixstowe will be damaging to the nation's ports as a whole and especially to Ipswich, it will disrupt the natural waterway for ship movements in the river Orwell and it will be detrimental to the wildlife which enjoys that habitat. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friends will prevent the Bill from being read a Second time.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): It may help the House if I intervene at this point to give the Government's view on the Bill. We have had an interesting debate on an important private Bill which affects the interests of my Department in relation to the ports industry and matters of navigational safety. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has an interest in the environmental and conservation issues.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) introduced the Bill in a speech which demonstrated the importance of the Bill to the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company and the economic benefits that the promoters foresee for Felixstowe and for jobs in the area.
First, I will set out the Government's view on port development projects in general. It has long been our view that ports should be free to compete for traffic on price and on the services that they offer. We see that as the main way in which they can contribute to our competitiveness as a nation. Jobs throughout much of United Kingdom industry depend on competitiveness; and transport costs are significant to exporters' ability to compete successfully.
Traditionally, the Government stand neutral in relation to private Bills and today will be no exception. That is why the Paymaster General, my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal, (Mr. Gummer), in whose constituency Felixstowe lies, is unable to participate in the debate.
Several hon. Members have suggested that the Bill should be opposed on what might be described as


"national" grounds. They have argued that such a significant development ought to be the concern of the Government because it affects the national interest. In our judgment, however, there are no grounds of national transport policy on which the Government believe that the Bill should be rejected.

Dr. David Clark: I concede that on ports grounds the Minister may be right, but he emphasised that it was also a matter for the Secretary of State for the Environment. Is he not aware that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has said:
Confirmation of an AONB designation order confers formal recognition by the Government that the natural beauty of the landscape in the area identified is of national importance. —[Official Report, 29 July 1982; Vol. 28, c. 708.]
Is one Department unaware of what the other is doing?

Mr. Mitchell: I referred to national ports policy. I did not deal with the environmental issues, but, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to proceed, I shall do so.
Our ports will have to continue to adapt to changing patterns of trade, and Bills of this type may well continue to be required, but that is not to say that the case for this Bill is a wholly good one or that it is satisfactory in all respects.
I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading so that the issues can be debated in more detail in Committee and a closer examination can be made of the various concessions and proposals offered by the promoters to meet the objections put forward, many of which have been mentioned tonight.
I do not think that it is productive to pursue the line of argument that Felixstowe should be prevented from expansion because capacity exists elsewhere. What matters is that capacity should be in the right place, where shippers and ship users want to use it. It is little help to have spare capacity which is inconvenient or too expensive to use. The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) and I have crossed swords on this issue in other contexts, and I do not propose to repeat the cogent arguments that I made on that occasion. In the past, criticism has been made that Britain did not have its "Rotterdam" and that container facilities were spread too thinly between too many ports. Now that Felixstowe is emerging as Britain's leading container port, it would be illogical to stem its growth and prevent shippers and ship lines from exercising that choice: Rotterdam is doing a huge business in trans-shipment of containers for sending to the United Kingdom by smaller vessels. One point that the Committee will want to consider is whether more of that trade could come direct to the United Kingdom.
It may be helpful to say a few words about infrastructure. This point was raised by a couple of my hon. Friends. The A45 from Ipswich and beyond runs down to the entrance of the Felixstowe dock. During the past five years it has been improved as far as the Al at Huntingdon via the A604 from Cambridge. It is now a high-standard, all-purpose, dual carriageway trunk road. A public inquiry is still in progress on the A1/M1 link to Birmingham and the midlands. Subject to the inquiry's outcome, the link will be completed by the end of the decade providing a route connecting Felixstowe with the

midlands and beyond. No further improvements to road infrastructure will be needed to cater for any increase in traffic arising from the proposed development.
On the question of the railway line, my Department has recently received an application for grant under section 8 of the Railways Act 1974 for the Felixstowe link line and terminal expansion at a total capital cost of 4·377 million to build up railway capacity from the current 140,000 containers per annum to 265,000. The railway is required for the opening of the new Trinity terminal, for which approval has already been given. The House may recall that section 8 grants are the way in which Government contribute to environmental protection by encouraging movement of goods off the roads and principally by rail. The water, gas, electricity and telecommunications undertakings have said that they do not expect the proposed development to cause them insuperable problems.
I turn to the navigational issues. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) and other hon. Members have made the point that vessels using the new docks could be a danger to navigation at the mouth of the Orwell and could damage the interests of the port of Ipswich by delaying its traffic. This is a problem of traffic control and the allocation of priorities. It must be examined in detail. I have been to see the problem on the ground and the water. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) says that there is no problem, but the hon. Member for Ipswich envisages significant problems, delays and obstruction. Interestingly enough, I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Sir J. Ridsdale) believes that agreement can be reached locally. I hope that all parties can agree on a solution, but this is very much a matter for examination in Committee.
Many hon. Members have expressed concern about the environmental impact of the Bill's proposals. I know that the Secretary of State for the Environment is similarly concerned about the effect that the development may have upon the environment and conservation issues.
We have here a highly successful commercial enterprise whose continued success, with all the employment and wealth creation that that implies, is seen to require an extension of the docks. The proposed expansion is over land and an area of outstanding natural beauty. The plans are objected to on environmental and conservation grounds by a number of organisations covering different interests.
The relevant Suffolk county structure plan approved by the Secretary of State for the Environment in August 1974 contains the following statement:
The exceptional landscape and wildlife quality of the Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty will be safeguarded through the strict control of development and through positive measures of management and enhancement …
The expansion of Felixstowe dock and associated industrial area will be limited in a westerly direction to those areas which do not conflict with the Suffolk Coast and Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
In the Felixstowe town map, which was approved in 1972, the area of outstanding natural beauty is shown as extending over the western part of the site. The House will be aware that areas of outstanding natural beauty are designated by the Countryside Commission, subject to confirmation by the Secretary of State for the Environment.
The Government's policy towards areas of outstanding natural beauty was oulined in a statement by the former


Secretary of State on 29 July 1982. I confirm that in our view the natural beauty of the landscape in these areas is of national importance and that in general it would not be consistent with the aims of designation to permit the siting of major industrial And commercial development in areas of outstanding natural beauty. Only national interests and lack of appropriate alternative sites can justify an exception. But each case must be determined on its merits, including consideration of the environmental effects.
In that respect the House will wish to know that the Countryside Commission is firmly of the opinion that the proposed development at Felixstowe would contribute a major intrusion into the area of outstanding natural beauty whose landscape the commission considers to be still the same high quality as when it was originally designated in 1969. The commission has visited the site and discussed the proposals with fie Bill's promoters. It recognises that there are arguments in favour of the Bill. None the less, it is not satisfied that the present evidence demonstrates conclusively that there is no alternative site elsewhere.
The commission has, however, determined not to object formally to the Bill, because it is not in a position itself to suggest an alternative site with any degree of authority. The factors involved are in fact complex. None the less, it is believed that Parliament should thoroughly satisfy itself on this point before permitting the proposals to proceed.
If the House votes in favour of giving the Bill a Second Reading, the commission will submit detailed advice to that effect. The commission's advice will form part of the Department's report to be put before the Committee.
The site of the proposed development is also an area of considerable nature conservation interest which has been identified by the Nature Conservancy Council as a site of special scientific interest. That, too, has been referred to during the debate. The inter-tidal mud flats and the salt marshes provide a feeding and roosting area for large numbers of wintering wildfowl and waders. The Nature Conservancy Council estimates that about 10 per cent. of the Orwell estuary site will be affected by the proposed development and has formally advised the Department of the Environment of its objection to the passage of the Bill.
If the House decides to give the Bill a Second Reading, the Nature Conservancy Council's detailed evidence will also be annexed to the Department's report to be put before the Committee.
As to the attitude of the planning authorities concerned, as the House knows, Suffolk county council has withdrawn its petition against the Bill following its reaching a provisional agreement with the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company and Trinity college Cambridge, the landowners, on a number of safeguarding measures, including landscaping, nature conservation, public rights of way, highway improvements, lighting, rail traffic, lorry parking, noise, development control, height of buildings, future expansion of the docks, public access and providing wetland for bird life.
On the other hand, the Suffolk coastal district council, which is the local planning authority for the area, is continuing to pursue its petition against the Bill. It, and other petitioners, w ill have a chance to present their objections to the Select Committee, where the issues can be examined in detail.
With regard to tae environment, it is clear that the proposed development will detract from the amenity of a small part of the Suffolk coast and heath area of

outstanding natural beauty. It would intrude over the ridge that separates the areas of outstanding natural beauty from the port and, as I have seen for myself, would enter the extensive flat river valley that forms the major part of the area of outstanding natural beauty. It would also damage the wildlife interest on part of the proposed site of special scientific interest, which is nationally important for certain bird species.
Against this has to be set the prospect of up to 1,100 new jobs which will be created directly, plus the 1.800 or so jobs which should follow in port-related businesses, and of the associated wealth that expansion would bring to the area. The Bill contains no environmental safeguard as it stands. It is understandable that those with a particular interest in the environment and amenity should expect the development to be justified in terms of national need and wish to satisfy themselves that there is no suitable alternative before accepting a development of this kind.
If the Bill were passed as it stands, the company would not require planning permission from local planning authorities and would be free to erect a number of buildings and structures outside normal development control, although it has agreed to some control in the agreement reached with the county council. The Bill does not contain information that would normally be incorporated into a planning application. If it were to be approved, some additional safeguard might therefore be prudent in view of the sensitivity of the location. On the other hand, the House may consider that the expansion of Felixstowe port as proposed is so important to the national economy and to the creation of jobs as to justify allowing the Bill to proceed even without such safeguards.
It is for the House to judge the arguments. but most of the matters spoken of so far can be decided only in Committee, when the detailed evidence on either side can be presented, examined and evaluated, together with reports from the Departments concerned. 'Therefore, I recommend to the House that the Bill be given a Second Reading and allowed to proceed in the usal way to Committee, where its provisions can be considered in proper detail.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) and for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) on their speeches giving compelling arguments against the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich spoke about locality and constituency interests, which we all understand, and then about the broader-based effects of the development of Felixstowe not only on his port, but on every other port in the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth's ecological argument was so good that if the House were to decide on the Bill only on that argument it would vote against Second Reading. I shall deal with a different argument, but I give my clear support to the arguments used by my hon. Friends.
I was not surprised to hear the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) in his parliamentary confessional box saying that on reflection he would not have given the ·45 million to support the port of Liverpool. I am sure that on Merseyside the people will consider that a further reason why they should never again elect a Tory Member of Parliament for the area.
Tory Members have advanced a narrow argument. I know of their hostility towards the national dock labour


scheme and registered dock workers. That has been shown on every occasion when the docks industry or the port transport industry has been debated in the House. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds has confirmed my view that the Government adopt a narrow attitude. Because of his obsessional hostility towards the national dock labour scheme and registered dock workers, he does not take into account the effects that the decline of the northern region ports has had on the hinterland of Merseyside and, indeed, of the whole north-west area. The population of the hinterland is about 19 million, and the decline of the port has had a direct effect on the people and the industry on that scale.
There has been no attempt by the Government to compensate for the decline of the port, which has been an act of deliberate policy on the part of the Government. In effect the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds has said that the port of Liverpool should die. His argument today has sentenced to death the northern region ports. We cannot view Felixstowe in isolation from other United Kingdom ports. There is an effect not just on the adjacent ports in the area but on all United Kingdom ports. My hon. Friends have explained that there is already surplus capacity in the United Kingdom ports industry.
Infrastructure is important. Not only are the northern region ports being sentenced to death, but the whole region's socio-economic position is being threatened. If we are being asked to accept that in future the south-east and south-west ports will be the basis for the port transport industry, any revival of the manufacturing industry in the northern region will be written off by the Tory party. If ports developed in that part of the country and if there were a revival of the manufacturing industry in the northern region—it certainly will not be under this Government —road and rail transport would be overburdened by all the traffic flowing to one or two points in Britain. One can draw that conclusion from the arguments put forward by Tory Members.
I spent most of my working life in the port of Liverpool. Before that I was a seaman.

Mr. James Prior: I apologise for not having been in the Chamber earlier, but what the hon. Gentleman has said causes me to get to my feet. Is it not true that the workings of the national dock labour scheme, however well intentioned, have resulted in the decline of the port of Liverpool? That is probably why Felixstowe has done so well and now needs to expand. Would not the hon. Gentleman be doing a greater service to the hinterland of Liverpool and Merseyside as a whole if he recognised that fact? In recent years there have been restrictive practices and everything else that has gone with that, for reasons which we understand but are outdated in a modern society.

Mr. Loyden: I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's analysis. The port of Liverpool was much affected by Britain's entry into the EEC, which was a political decision. I was not a registered dock worker but I was employed in the hydrographic section of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company as it then was. I know that, before a new dock was built at Liverpool, there was a four-year feasibility study. I understand that there has been no such study on the Orwell. Unless one is carried out, there

will be much uncertainty about navigation and no certainty about the natural meanderings of the river once construction takes place that bears on the flow.
It is astounding that we should be considering the Bill's Second Reading when there is no evidence that the important issues which have been highlighted have been examined by the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company. A feasibility study should have been presented and navigation and ecology problems should have been considered before the House was asked even to entertain the Bill.
Opposition Members are not saying that Felixstowe workers are not entitled to jobs. I shall support any job creation programme at Felixstowe. However, jobs at Felixstowe should not be created at the expense of jobs in other ports. I am not prepared to accept job creation in one area that exports unemployment elsewhere.
The trade coming into and out of the United Kingdom is finite and this means that the strategic dispersal of the ports is of considerable importance. To suggest that we are out to overtake the port of Rotterdam is to whistle in the wind. The development of Felixstowe cannot endanger such a well-established port.
There has been a sad decline in coastal trade and the use of our inland waterways. There is increasing concern about the growth of the traffic on our roads that passes through towns and the countryside generally. Our coastal waters offer the best possible highways, but the Government have failed to revive and encourage what was once a flourishing industry. I was a seaman in the late 1930s and I know that coastal vessels ran from port to port around the British Isles carrying cargo. That was acceptable environmentally. If that coastal traffic is not redeveloped, the environmental consequences will be severe.
Ipswich may suffer the same consequences as Merseyside. Merseyside has lost 100,000 jobs since 1979, mainly because of the loss of a port. Although a port remains, all the port-related industries have faded and disappeared. The tremendous problems that exist with more than 21 per cent. unemployment show what has been happening. The Government have done nothing to deal with the problems which are the consequence of decisions based purely on market economic forces. With one or two honourable exceptions, we have heard only about how the market forces should dominate and influence the decisions. Those who support the Bill have not seriously questioned the consequences for jobs in other areas, the environmental consequences and the ecological consequences of those decisions.
The House would do itself a service if it did not agree to give the Bill a Second Reading. An appropriate strategy is needed for British ports such as Liverpool and the ports of the northern region. Throughout two world wars, they provided the best port facilities that we had, and now they are going into decline because of a deliberate act of policy. The thinking behind port strategy is short-term, and there are no signs of a long-term strategy. The technology of the dock industry can change, and in the not-too-distant future we may recognise that containerisation and palletisation have merely transferred the cost from the port to other areas. If there is a revival of industry in the northern regions, that may make us realise the importance of the northern region ports. We are debating an extremely serious issue and we should not give a Second Reading to the Bill.

Sir Paul Bryan: I must declare an interest as the deputy chairman of Furness Withy, which owns the Walton terminal at Felixstowe, and an interest in associate companies, whose ships use the port. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) presented the Bill with a well informed and balanced speech; the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) in turn, made an admirable constituency speech. I am glad that it does not fall to myself to answer his environmental arguments. He is hard to please. If one plants 500,000 trees that is wrong; and if one does not it is more wrong.
During the evening, while we listened to the opinions of about 20 hon. Members, I wondered what the views of the people of Rotterdam would be. They are going ahead with great conviction with plans to enlarge both Zeebrugge and Rotterdam. They do not have the doubts that have been voiced tonight.
I warn the hon. Members for Wigan (Mr. Stott) and for Ipswich of the dangers of using academics to forecast the future of ports. They are always wrong. If an academic of one's choice had been asked in 1955 to forecast what was likely to happen at Felixstowe, he would certainly not have said that it would become a great port. It was a very small one then. However, even had that been forecast, the Opposition, on tonight's form, would have said, "On no account must it be expanded because that would harm Liverpool and Bristol."
Some years ago the Rochdale report was published, in which the greatest or the most informed in the land foretold the future of the ports. They got it hopelessly wrong. The then biggest ports would remain the biggest ports and would become even bigger. The main ports then were Liverpool, London, Manchester, the Clyde and Bristol, and they had half the trade in the country; now they have a quarter. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds discovered, Governments cannot decide which will be the biggest ports. The people who use the ports will decide that.
There was a great movement to the east from the western ports, partly for structural reasons, because the shipowners had to deal with Europe and wished to use the eastern ports. But they also declined to use some eastern ports because the service there was so bad. For example, there is no finer port than Southampton. It is a more natural port by far than Felixstowe, and everyone would wish to use it, but, as the hon. Member for Wigan said, for six months last year it was closed. Shipowners cannot afford that sort of treatment.
Shipowners could not afford such treatment even when ships were small. I do not know whether hon. Members realise how they have increased in size. I was in Lima three or four weeks ago and visited one of our ships, which carries 2,000 containers. It is not an exceptionally large ship by today's standards, but when one stands beside it, it looks colossal. My first thought was how vulnerable it would be in war. Larger container ships use Felixstowe; they are loaded and unloaded at astonishing speed. In 30 hours, at least 1,000 boxes can be dealt with. By "dealt with" I do not mean simply loaded. The boxes are put on the ship in a place handy for unloading at a particular port. The ship may have another 16 ports to visit, and everything must be packed in order. It is a highly technical operation.
Shipowners cannot afford to have expensive ships hanging round. To stand idle for even a day could cost about ·60,000. Delayed ships not only lose cash and customers, but get behind on the timetables with which all conference ships must comply.
The position that I have just described will be out of date almost before I have finished speaking. Just as in the 1970s there was a revolution in oil tankers, with enormous ships being built — finally reaching a size of half a million tonnes — exactly the same is happening with container ships. I mentioned a ship with about 2,000 containers, the new ships are more than twice that size. The number of such ships being built is phenomenal. In two or three years, United States Line will have produced 14 of those vast ships, which will operate, as never before, a round-the-world service. They are being followed by Evergreen, with ships not quite so large, and by two or three other groups. This revolution once again puts in doubt every forecast that every 'academic and, indeed, every business man has been making during the past few years.
The hon. Member for Ipswich need not worry about the container port on the other side of the river becoming a white elephant. That is the worry of the people who put their money into the venture. They are much more likely to be right than the hon. Member for Ipswich, Professor Gilman or any of the other people who have been quoted, because they have something at risk. We should let them take the risk. If they do as well as Felixstowe has done, God bless them.
I cannot resist making one more point which has nothing to do with the Bill, but which is relevant to the use of ports. My hon. Friend the Minister said the other day:
For deep-sea containerised cargo UK port costs are significantly, indeed on average, half as dear again as continental levels…. It is an on-cost which increases the cost of imports and loses us export orders.
However efficient people and ports are, we must get the issue of light duties right.
Ships can enter Rotterdam without payment, whereas the big ships that I have been describing would have to pay ·20,000 to enter our ports. That is a penalty which they cannot be expected to endure for long. It is doubly unjust, in that merchant ships pay dues, whereas fishing boats and the Navy do not. As merchant ships become more sophisticated, they need less help from lights or pilots, but they still have to pay these enormous sums. I am aware that an inquiry has been set up to go into this matter. It is important that we get it right.
As the Merchant Navy declines, this country is getting into a humiliating position, as more and more of the trade of this famous seafaring nation is having to be carried in foreign ships. If our ports are not allowed to keep up to date, more and more of that trade will not be carried in our ships or landed in our ports. In future the biggest ships may ignore this country and deliver their cargoes across the ocean. We shall have to collect our goods in small ships. This is unacceptable. Every help should be given to those who are willing to provide up-to-date ports, and for that reason I support the Bill.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 201, Noes 54.

Division No. 204]
[9.58 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Aitken, Jonathan
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Alexander, Richard
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Alton, David
Howells, Geraint


Amess, David
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Ancram, Michael
Jackson, Robert


Arnold, Tom
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Ashdown, Paddy
Key, Robert


Aspinwall, Jack
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
King, Rt Hon Tom


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Kirkwood, Archy


Baldry, Tony
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)


Batiste, Spencer
Lang, Ian


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Lawrence, Ivan


Beith, A. J.
Lee, John (Pendle)


Bellingham, Henry
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Benyon, William
Lester, Jim


Best, Keith
Lightbown, David


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Lilley, Peter


Biggs-Davison, Sir John.
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Blackburn, John
Lord, Michael


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Lyell, Nicholas


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Maclean, David John


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
McQuarrie, Albert


Bright, Graham
Madel, David


Brinton, Tim
Major, John


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Malone, Gerald


Browne, John
Maples, John


Bruce, Malcolm
Marlow, Antony


Bruinvels, Peter
Mates, Michael


Bryan, Sir Paul
Mather, Carol


Buck, Sir Antony
Maude, Hon Francis


Budgen, Nick
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Butcher, John
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Butler, Hon Adam
Meadowcroft, Michael


Butterfill, John
Mellor, David


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Merchant, Piers


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Cash, William
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Chapman, Sydney
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Chope, Christopher
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Conway, Derek
Moynihan, Hon C.


Coombs, Simon
Neale, Gerrard


Cope, John
Neubert, Michael


Cormack, Patrick
Newton, Tony


Couchman, James
Nicholls, Patrick


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Normanton, Tom


Dickens, Geoffrey
Norris, Steven


Dorrell, Stephen
Oppenheim, Phillip


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Osborn, Sir John


Dover, Den
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Dunn, Robert
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Durant, Tony
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abdgn)


Eggar, Tim
Penhaligon, David


Emery, Sir Peter
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Evennett, David
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Powley, John


Fallon, Michael
Price, Sir David


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Prior, Rt Hon James


Fookes, Miss Janet
Raffan, Keith


Forman, Nigel
Rhodes James, Robert


Forth, Eric
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Fox, Marcus
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Rifkind, Malcolm


Grant, Sir Anthony
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Greenway, Harry
Roe, Mrs Marion


Gummer, John Selwyn
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Rowe, Andrew


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Ryder, Richard


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hayhoe, Barney
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Hayward, Robert
Shelton, William (Streatham)





Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Waddington, David


Silvester, Fred
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Sims, Roger
Walden, George


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wall, Sir Patrick


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Waller, Gary


Speed, Keith
Ward, John


Spence, John
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Spencer, Derek
Watson, John


Stanbrook, Ivor
Watts, John


Steel, Rt Hon David
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Stern, Michael
Wheeler, John


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Whitney, Raymond


Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Wiggin, Jerry


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stradling Thomas, J.
Winterton, Nicholas


Taylor, John (Solihull)
Wolfson, Mark


Terlezki, Stefan
Wood, Timothy


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Woodcock, Michael


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Yeo, Tim


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)



Thornton, Malcolm
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thurnham, Peter
Mr. Eldon Griffiths and


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Mr. William Powell.


van Straubenzee, Sir W.



NOES


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Litherland, Robert


Bermingham, Gerald
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Bidwell, Sydney
Loyden, Edward


Boyes, Roland
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
McNamara, Kevin


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
McWilliam, John


Buchan, Norman
Madden, Max


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Maxton, John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Patchett, Terry


Corbyn, Jeremy
Pavitt, Laurie


Cowans, Harry
Pendry, Tom


Dixon, Donald
Pike, Peter


Dormand, Jack
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Eadie, Alex
Richardson, Ms Jo


Eastham, Ken
Robertson, George


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Hardy, Peter
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Heffer, Eric S.
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Soley, Clive


Janner, Hon Greville
Spearing, Nigel


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Stott, Roger


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Weetch, Ken


Lambie, David



Lamond, James
Tellers for the Noes:


Leadbitter, Ted
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody and


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 195, Noes 59.

Division No 205]
[10.12pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Beith, A. J.


Aitken, Jonathan
Bellingham, Henry


Alexander, Richard
Benyon, William


Amess, David
Best, Keith


Ancram, Michael
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Arnold, Tom
Biggs-Davison, Sir John


Ashdown, Paddy
Blackburn, John


Aspinwall, Jack
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Baldry, Tony
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Batiste, Spencer
Bright, Graham


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Brinton, Tim






Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Lyell, Nicholas


Browne, John
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Bruce, Malcolm
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Bruinvels, Peter
Maclean, David John


Bryan, Sir Paul
McQuarrie, Albert


Buck, Sir Antony
Madel, David


Butcher, John
Major, John


Butler, Hon Adam
Malone, Gerald


Butterfill, John
Maples, John


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Mates, Michael


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Mather, Carol


Cash, William
Maude, Hon Francis


Chapman, Sydney
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Meadowcroft, Michael


Conway, Derek
Mellor, David


Coombs, Simon
Merchant, Piers


Cope, John
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Couchman, James
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Dorrell, Stephen
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Dover, Den
Moynihan, Hon C.


Dunn, Robert
Neale, Gerrard


Durant, Tony
Neubert, Michael


Eggar, Tim
Newton, Tony


Emery, Sir Peter
Nicholls, Patrick


Evennett, David
Normanton, Tom


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Norris, Steven


Fallon, Michael
Oppenheim, Phillip


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Osborn, Sir John


Fookes, Miss Janet
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Forman, Nigel
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Forth, Eric
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abdgn)


Fox, Marcus
Penhaligon, David


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Portillo, Michael


Grant, Sir Anthony
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Greenway, Harry
Powley, John


Gummer, John Selwyn
Price, Sir David


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Prior, Rt Hon James


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Raffan, Keith


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Rhodes James, Robert


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Hayhoe, Barney
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hayward, Robert
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Howells, Geraint
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Rowe, Andrew


Jackson, Robert
Ryder, Richard


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Sayeed, Jonathan


Key, Robert
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Kirkwood, Archy
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Silvester, Fred


Lang, Ian
Sims, Roger


Lawrence, Ivan
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Speed, Keith


Lester, Jim
Spence, John


Lightbown, David
Spencer, Derek


Lilley, Peter
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Lord, Michael
Stern, Michael





Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Watson, John


Stradling Thomas, J.
Watts, John


Taylor, John (Solihull)
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Terlezki, Stefan
Wheeler, John


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Whitney, Raymond


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Wiggin, Jerry


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)
Winterton, Nicholas


Thornton, Malcolm
Wolfson, Mark


Thurnham, Peter
Wood, Timothy


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Woodcock, Michael


van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Yeo, Tim


Waddington, David
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Wakeham, Rt Hon John



Walden, George
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wall, Sir Patrick
Mr. Eldon Griffiths and


Waller, Gary
Mr. William Powell.


Ward, John



NOES


Alton, David
Litherland, Robert


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Bermingham, Gerald
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Bidwell, Sydney
McNamara, Kevin


Boyes, Roland
McWilliam, John


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Madden, Max


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Buchan, Norman
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Maxton, John


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Patchett, Terry


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Pavitt, Laurie


Corbyn, Jeremy
Pendry, Tom


Cowans, Harry
Pike, Peter


Dixon, Donald
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Dormand, Jack
Richardson, Ms Jo


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Robertson, George


Eadie, Alex
Rogers, Allan


Eastham, Ken
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Gould, Bryan
Skinner, Dennis


Hardy, Peter
Snape, Peter


Heffer, Eric S.
Soley, Clive


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Spearing, Nigel


Janner, Hon Greville
Stott, Roger


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Weetch, Ken


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald



Lambie, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Lamond, James
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett and


Leadbitter, Ted
Mr. Eddie Loyden.


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,

That, at this day's sitting, the Surrogacy Arrangements Bill and the Prosecution of Offences Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour. — [Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

Orders of the Day — Surrogacy Arrangements Bill

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1

MEANING OF "SURROGATE MOTHER", "SURROGACY ARRANGEMENT" AND OTHER TERMS

Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 20, at end insert—
'(10) In any contract for a surrogacy arrangement, no part of the contract shall be enforceable at law which requires a surrogate mother to hand over a child to another person or persons.'.
We had a long debate in Committee on a number of issues, in the best possible spirit, while endeavouring to grapple with the immense complexity of the whole issue of surrogacy, and especially about the detailed items drawn out of the general debate about Warnock and about embryology and surrogacy as embodied in the Bill.
There is a general consensus among hon. Members that we do not want the delicate and intimate arrangements that might be made about surrogacy to be subject to commercial gain or even commercial contracts. Together with the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) and other Committee members, I sought to probe the Government's view on a number of delicate and specific issues. The Government's responses, to some extent, went to the heart of the amendments, and in each case they were not pressed to a vote. It is because of the only partial response to some of the issues that have I tabled the amendment.
On Second Reading my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) raised the whole question of the enforceability of contracts. The Bill leaves somewhat vague the question whether any contract should be enforceable in law. It has left open the question whether someone could take to court the case person who had sought to enter into a financial contract or—and this is the ground of the amendment — whether a surrogate mother should be forced to give up the child. The Secretary of State seemed to take the view that the law as it stood was clear and that no such contract—a contract to hand over the baby or the money — would be enforceable in the courts. My hon. Friend then asked the Minister whether, if he had any doubts on the point, some provision should be included in the Bill. No such provision has been made, so we are left with an ambiguity.
Replying to the debate on an amendment tabled by me in Committee upstairs when I probed the question whether any contract for a surrogacy arrangement would be enforceable by law or against any persons making it, the Minister responded that while the question of the entire enforceability was an issue about which strong feelings were held — indeed, the Warnock committee had recommended that no contract under any surrogacy arrangement should be enforceable and that any such arrangement, commercial or non-commercial, should be made illegal—in his personal opinion it should be made unenforceable for the mother to be compelled to hand over

the child. He went on to say that nobody wished to see a surrogacy contract enforced, with a surrogate mother who changed her mind being obliged to hand over the child. That, he said, was straightforward.
Because the Minister made comments such as that, I have tabled the amendment. I am testing whether it is possible to distinguish between undue pressures being brought to bear on a surrogate mother and a financial arrangement which might be sought to be enforced in the court. It is reasonable to say that the whole question is highly charged with emotion. It is said that in certain circumstances it should not be illegal for a woman to bear a child for another woman. If it is said that, within a close family or, indeed, a close friendship, we would not wish by legislation to make such an arrangement illegal, we must go on to consider the question whether it is possible to exert undue pressure on the woman involved in that arrangement.
Given the delicacy of the issue and the emotion involved, our view is that such an arrangement should not be enforceable by law if the surrogate mother decides at the end of the pregnancy that she does not wish to give up the child. I understand that that is also the view of the Minister. That being so, we thought it wise to test the view of hon. Members on the issue, in particular to see whether our view and that of the Minister would gain the approval of the House as a whole.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Having been a member of the Committee which considered the Bill, of which I am strongly in favour, I could not understand why the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) had tabled the amendment. Indeed, having heard him move it, I see neither the need for it nor how it would be enforceable. It says:
In any contract for a surrogacy arrangement, no part of the contract shall be enforceable at law".
What is the point of an amendment that is not enforceable at law? The handing over of a child is something that we do not want to happen in the first place. I should have thought that the point was amply covered by clause 9, which provides that the
Act applies to arrangements whether or not they are lawful and … are enforceable by or against any of the persons making them.
That seems perfectly satisfactory to me.

Mrs. Jill Knight: There is no clause 9 in the Bill.

Mr. Bruinvels: Yes, there is. Clause 9 is already in the Bill as drafted.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Perhaps I can assist the hon. Gentleman. I think that he means subsection (9) of clause 1. The Bill has only five clauses.
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will also explain what he means when he says that something is not lawful. I thought that the whole purpose of introducing the Bill was to make law.

Mr. Bruinvels: Yes, I meant subsection (9) of clause 1. I should have thought that that was clear. The amendment refers to page 2, line 20, and that is the part of the Bill to which I am referring. Subsection (9) states:
This Act applies to arrangements whether or not they are lawful and whether or not they are enforceable by or against any of the persons making them.


The Bill as drafted seems to cover all the points that we debated in Committee. What is the point of amendment No. 1 when subsection (9) already makes the position clear? Subsections (1) to (9) deal with the contracts and their legal effect and I am confident that the Bill as drafted, as we debated it on Second Reading and in Committee, defines the law with regard to surrogacy arrangements once and for all.
I find it very strange that anyone should regard the amendment as necessary. I am concerned that the law should be carefully encapsulated as it is in the Bill. Most people regard surrogacy as abhorrent. We debated the matter in Committee and considered all the amendments tabled at that stage. Whatever the hon. Member for Leeds, West may say, it seems strange to me that no amendment of this kind was put forward at that stage. Most of my colleagues accepted the Bill exactly as it was in Committee, and so did I. We had a tremendously quickly debated Committee stage under the very able chairmanship of the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) and I believe that the Bill should be left as it is.
The most important thing is to get the Bill on to the Statute Book as quickly as possible. We do not want any more commercial arrangements and we do not want any more surrogacy arrangements. Unfortunately, we know full well that three more children are liable to be born before the Bill reaches the Statute Book. Any kind of filibustering or delaying tactic today is totally unnecessary.

Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed): rose—

Mr. Bruinvels: The most important thing is to pass the Bill as it is, unamended, in the interests of preserving family life and ensuring that no form of engagement or contractual arrangement of this kind will ever be allowed again. For that reason, I cannot possibly support the amendment.
I welcome the Bill, I am delighted that it has made such rapid progress, and I wish it every success when it goes to another place.

Ms. Jo Richardson: I really cannot understand the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels). He seems to have gone right over the top, as he always does—or at any rate as is his usual bent.
The hon. Gentleman said that he welcomed the Bill and that he was against the commercial aspects of surrogacy. We are all against the commercial aspects. He went on to say that he wanted no more surrogacy, but that is not the purpose of the Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to deal with the narrow, profit-making aspect on which we all agree, and we wish to ensure that it does not stray any further into an area that the Government and all of us may be considering at a much later stage — the far more sensitive and difficult issue of surrogacy as such.
I support the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft). The hon. Member for Leicester, East said that this issue was not raised in Committee. In fact, however, it was raised in the Committee, as reported at column 5 of the Official Report. A very similar amendment was moved and the Minister gave a most thoughtful reply, which clearly induced the hon. Member for Leeds, West to table the amendment now under discussion. The amendment merely clarifies something that could be a doubtful area if the Bill were left as it is. A number of parts of the Bill are doubtful areas,

and I hope that we shall refer to them on Third Reading. I do not think that it was necessary for the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) to go over the top as though something disastrous had been proposed which would run a coach and horses through the Bill. Nothing like that has been proposed.

Mrs. Jill Knight: I should like to ensure that this is not altogether a party matter. I did not have the inestimable benefit of being a member of the Standing Committee, but I have read the amendment. I shall listen with enormous care and interest to my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister. It cannot be wrong to pass an amendment which says that, whatever the arrangements made at the outset of a pregnancy, a woman should not be forced to give up her child. One's mind can change very much during pregnancy and especially when the child has been born. I cannot envisage the possibility of giving up a child.
Unless the amendment has some dastardly purpose behind it which I have not spotted, it merely says that we should not have a law on the statute book which says to a woman, "However you may feel when your child is born, you must give it up." For that simple, straightforward reason, I support the amendment.

The Minister for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I am not surprised that only one amendment has been tabled. As we discovered on Second Reading and in Standing Committee, there is a consensus on both sides of the House in support of the Bill. It is plainly the wish of the House that we should not have commercial agencies to organise surrogate motherhood and advertisements freely circulating seeking partners to surrogacy arrangements. I cannot recall legislation produced by any Government which has commanded such widespread support and had such an easy and comparatively speedy passage.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) that it would be extremely undesirable to delay the passage of the Bill. If this debate turns into a filibuster, I think that there will be concern. On this occasion, it is possible that my hon. Friend has made a rare error and misunderstood the purpose of the amendment. He rightly drew our attention to clause 1(9).

Mr. Meadowcroft: The suggestion that we might be filibustering impugns our professional motives.

Mr. Clarke: I did not make that suggestion. It was a passing reference in the heat of the moment by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East. This debate cannot yet be accused of being a filibuster.
Clause 1(9) does not have quite the meaning attributed to it by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East. The amendment goes back to the sympathetic response that I gave to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on Second Reading when he asked the extent to which a surrogacy agreement between any parties might be enforceable at law. I stated the opinion, which has been stated by others before and since, that it is almost certain that most aspects of a surrogacy agreement would be regarded as unenforceable by the courts as being contrary to public policy. The Warnock committee recommended that this point should be expressed in statutory form so that the matter could be put beyond any doubt and not need to wait for case law to be determined with absolute clarity for the purpose of parties to would-be surrogacy arrangements.
We discussed this in Committee, and I explained that the difficulty that arose in deciding how to express such a matter in statutory form came when one considered those aspects of a surrogacy agreement which one wished to make unlawful and non-binding on the parties. We agreed that it should not be a case that any woman was legally obliged to hand over a child because at the time that the child was conceived she agreed to do so. If a woman changes her mind when the birth takes place, plainly it would be wrong for a court to order a protesting mother to hand over her child.
Similarly, we are agreed that if a would-be surrogate mother enters into an agreement with would-be parents and then the parents change their minds and do not go ahead with the arrangements, it would be quite wrong for the would-be mother to be allowed to sue for the fee under some contract into which she had entered.
As I explained in Committee, difficulties arise. One has to consider what happens, for example, where there is a voluntary surrogacy arrangement which for the time being would remain lawful until the House decided the wider issues when we reached the full Warnock Bill, and the sister, say, of the putative parents gives up her job, becomes pregnant, and incurs medical expenses, and then the intending parents renege on the arrangement and will not even pay her expenses or compensation for loss of employment.
I throw that out as a question. I am not sure what the right answer is when it comes to the possibility of the pregnant woman suing for at least the expenses that she will have to incur in going ahead with the pregnancy. But those are the difficulties that have led the Government not so far to be able to move an amendment to meet the Warnock recommendations and the wish of the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) and others that we might put this in statutory form.

Mrs. Jill Knight: Do we know what would happen if the child was born mentally or physically handicapped?

Mr. Clarke: That is just such a situation which led us to think that commercial surrogacy was not a practice that we wished to see adopted. However else one resolves that appalling situation, I do not think that it is best resolved by, say, the mother who had given birth taking legal action to force the would-be parents to assume parental rights over the child. I am not sure how she would set about doing so, anyway. That would have to be resolved in some more suitable way by the Family Division of the High Court. It would not depend on the enforceability of the contract between the parties.
The Government remain sympathetic to the idea of providing a statutory provision to put the law beyond doubt, but we are having considerable difficulties in deciding on its exact form. If we can resolve them, we hope to consider bringing forward such an amendment in another place.
I shall then be asked by the hon. Member for Leeds, West why his amendment is not an adequate step in the right direction. On the face of it, there is nothing wrong with the amendment. He is merely saying that there shall be no contract enforceable at law which requires a surrogate mother to hand over her child to another person. The slight difficulty is that it carries the implication, or it might be argued that it gave rise to the inference, that other

parts of the contract were enforceable. It might therefore unintentionally be a slight step backwards in that it could be argued that it carried the implication that, as Parliament had concentrated on that aspect of the contract and set it out specifically, it was somehow the intention that otherwise the contract might be enforceable.
In view of that, I suggest that the best way of proceeding might be for the amendment to be withdrawn or negatived at this stage on my undertaking that my Department will continue to struggle with the difficulties. I cannot give an absolute assurance that we shall produce an amendment, but we shall make efforts to do so in a form which meets the wishes of the House and makes clear those aspects of a surrogacy arrangement which ought to be unenforceable in any court of law.

Mr. Beith: The Minister for Health has been uniformly constructive and helpful throughout the consideration of this and other aspects of the Bill. That cannot be said for the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels), who thought that the alliance was filibustering. One sitting of the Committee and 45 minutes on Report must be the shortest filibuster in the annals of parliamentary history. If we are to be accused of a filibuster every time we make any attempt to debate any Bill to any extent at all, Parliament might as well pack up and go home. What are we here for if not to try to ensure that the laws passed by Parliament are sensible, workable and carry out the objectives which they are intended to carry out? I regard it as part of my job as a Member of Parliament to pay a part in that process, as do my hon. Friends.
The hon. Member for Leicester, East said that as a result of the Bill the laws on surrogacy arrangements would be clear once and for all. Of all the claims that the Government might make about the Bill, that is not one. The Bill will, I hope, effectively outlaw commercial surrogacy. I say "I hope" because I still have some doubts about some aspects of the Bill. It is a genuine attempt to do that, and the Government have drafted it carefully with that intention in mind. However, the Bill does not ensure that the law on surrogacy arrangements generally, or even on some aspects of commercial surrogacy, will be clear once and for all. They will not be, and there are many unclear aspects yet to be considered about this part of the law.
For example, as I have reminded the Minister on a number of occasions, we are still not clear, although I have my view of what the interpretation might be, whether when someone has given birth to a baby in these circumstances the child will be entitled to know the identity of his natural mother when he reaches the age of maturity, as with adoption cases. I think that the law will give the right to an 18-year-old to know the identity of the natural mother, and I am sure that that is not envisaged by people who would contemplate making surrogacy arrangements.
The Bill and the law are still unclear about whether it is possible to enforce surrogacy contracts in the courts. The general view is that they would prove to be unenforceable. That was the view taken by the Warnock committee, but that did not deter it from saying that the law should be clear on the point. It was emphatic, by a majority, on that view. It seemed to some members of the Committee that it would underpin the ban on commercial surrogacy if the contracts could not be enforced, because


people are much less likely to enter into a commercial arrangement if they know that it is not enforceable. If the key element in that arrangement—the transfer of the baby—cannot be enforced by law, they will lose the money which they have invested and the profits which they hoped to gain by it.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: rose—

Mr. Beith: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, because he refused to give way to me.
Most of us feel that it would be ethically objectionable if a mother, after giving birth to a baby, could be forced by a legal contract to give that baby to someone else. It would be wrong to try to enforce that through the courts. Therefore, we have considered at various stages the desirability of using the Bill to make that point clear.
I recognise that there are difficulties, although some of the difficulties which the Minister mentioned would apply to anything in the Bill that we clarified, because whatever

we clarify, we shall leave other matters unclear. There cannot be an argument about clarifying a major and important matter such as the rights of the mother who has given birth to the baby, although there are other aspects which might be deemed to be left unclear by not treating them in a similar way.
I recognise the Minister's genuine willingness to try to resolve this problem and to see whether we can get the law more clear on this point through the vehicle of the Bill. I accept his undertaking to attempt to make progress on the matter in the other place. I appreciate that that has to be a qualified undertaking, because he is conscious that the task may prove too difficult, and a satisfactory form of words may not be arrived at. I believe that his intentions are of the best, and I willingly accept his suggestion about the amendment.

Mr. Meadowcroft: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Major.]

Mr. Beith: It is right that we should discuss the general principles of the Bill on Third Reading. I am glad that a Bill was introduced to outlaw commercial surrogacy, but the consideration of that Bill has shown us what a difficult and complex area of law it is.
There have been those who, during our discussions on the Bill, seem to have formed the opinion that it either will, or could, if it had been suitably amended, outlaw surrogacy generally. That is not what the Bill will do. It was not the intention of the Bill. In my view, it should never have attempted to do so. It would have been wrong had either the Government or hon. Members attempted to do so.
After careful consideration of the matter, I have come to the conclusion that to attempt to outlaw surrogacy generally would be unrealistic and involve extending the area of criminality into places where it should not be. However, in doing so, I believe that we accept that, if we give the Bill a Third Reading tonight, we will appear to have acted in defiance of a firm Warnock recommendation that some matters should be made criminal. For example, in the Warnock report there was a clear recommendation that professional people would be committing an offence if they involved themselves in many of the matters in the Bill. We have decided not to frame it in such a way that it has that effect, so in some respects it is an anti-Warnock Bill. It goes against a definite Warnock recommendation. In other matters, it has simply deferred consideration. That was inevitable.
The Bill represents a valuable step, rightly applauded by many in the country, to outlaw the odious practice of seeking to make profit out of infertility and childless couples. For that reason, it will be widely welcomed.

Ms. Richardson: At the risk of incurring the wrath of the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels), I hope to make a few points. Nobody should accuse me of filibustering. I have some important points to make.
The Bill has gone through the House speedily. It has gone from Second Reading to Third Reading in just two days under a month. That is a measure of the willingness of Parliament to respond to the natural distaste that has been evident among the public at large and also in Parliament towards the commercial aspects and profit-making by another party or agency, the intention of which is simply to bring couples and surrogate mothers together to make money out of their situation.
While we may congratulate ourselves on the speed with which we have dealt with the Bill in the House, I am a little more cautious in saying that I believe that we have got the Bill exactly right. The Minister for Health, in response to the short debate on the amendment, had one or two reservations about whether there should be an amendment here at an amendment there, which could be tabled in another place. Areas of doubt remain, which I find worrying. I tabled several amendments in Committee and withdrew them. I have been unable to find a way of tabling them in a way that would meet the approval of the Minister and the House. Therefore, I propose to air again the three principal points that I raised in Committee.
It is no shame to say that it is difficult to frame amendments because we are, after all, legislating for an entirely new area of the law. Surrogacy is not something that the House has considered before. Although there are precedents in some respects with regard to adoption and so on, it raises different matters from what the House has talked about on previous occasions in other ways. Therefore, we are right to be cautious about how we handle the matter. The Minister, and hon. Members on both sides of the House, has said frequently during the passage of the Bill that we need time to consider all the remaining aspects of what he calls, and what I suppose will become known as, the wider Warnock Bill to come. I can understand that he and his Department may be having some difficulty drafting the Bill.
I hope that the speed with which we have considered the Bill will not cause problems for the innocent. That is my principal worry. Unless the Bill is amended in another place, we shall have to wait to see how the Bill works when enacted. We may have to catch up with certain nasty practices when the wider Warnock Bill is introduced.
I shall refer briefly to the three areas about which I am still uncertain. First, there is the possibility of payment to those who advise or counsel the parties involved in a surrogacy arrangement and who receive payment for professional services. In Committee we had a fairly lengthy and most interesting exchange on this issue. It appears that a solicitor who is consulted by the parties may tell them what the law is— what we have decided in Parliament — but may not suggest that parts of arrangements to which they have come are not fair. The Minister says that to do so would be to negotiate and would mean that the solicitor would fall foul of the Act, unless he or she took no money for doing so. It is unlikely that a solicitor would advise without taking some sort of fee. Indeed, I do not see why he or she should give professional advice for nothing. Perhaps we shall see the springing up of advisers in law centres where charges are not made. That might be a way of skirting the problem.
Since our consideration of the Bill in Committee, I have been advised by one or two solicitors that, if it were not possible for a solicitor to tell one of the two parties to be wary about part of the agreement, the solicitor might be in breach of his professional standards. There is a duty upon a solicitor to give the best advice that he can offer. It will be ludicrous if a solicitor has to stay silent when he reads an agreement which he is asked to put into legal words and thinks that it is manifestly unfair to one side or the other.
Similarly, I assume that if a host mother engages a solicitor to advise her—that would not be a stupid thing to do—and the parents engage another solicitor, neither legal representative will be able to act without flouting the law or without taking any money. In other words, we are saying to the parties, in effect, that there is no point in ascertaining the best arrangement to which they can come. This measure is entitled the Surrogacy Arrangements Bill, but notwithstanding that title a solicitor will not be able to help or advise the parties without falling foul of the law or offering advice without charging a fee. It is probably not possible to do that in legal cases. That is a bad feature of the Bill and I hope that the Minister will give it further thought. Perhaps it will be considered by those in another place so that persons such as solicitors and others who give helpful advice will not unwittingly be caught by the bar on negotiating.
Secondly, I am concerned about the liability that is imposed on publishers by clause 3(2). The Minister will have read the letter from the Newspaper Society of 15 April, which was 10 days before we considered the Bill in Committee. I received a copy of the letter only this morning. I shall quote from it briefly as I think it important to place certain passages on the record.
The Newspaper Society said
the comparison which Mr. Clarke made with libel law is not a valid one: leaving aside the fact that in many cases newspapers are protected by 'privilege' in libel actions, the law relating to editorial matter is quite distinct from that relating to advertising. At the very least, the law presumably reflects the point that editorial matter is by and large produced 'in house', whereas advertising matter merely consists of the reproduction of that which is composed by others.
We explored that point in Committee. I said what the position of someone on a newspaper would be who took the text of an advertisement over the telephone and might not know exactly what it meant. The Newspaper Society continues—
The distinction drawn in the Bill between newspaper publishers and broadcasters does not seem to have been discussed in Committee.
It was not. The letter continues—
This, in effect, gives broadcasters a defence of innocent dissemination. Why should newspapers not have similar protection?
The Newspaper Society finally stated:
we were a little confused by Mr. Bruinvels' reference to
`disclaimers'.
Indeed, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) leapt to his feet from his vast experience in the newspaper industry before he came to the House. The letter continues:
In our experience this is not the usual practice. Mr. Bruinvels may be thinking of a newspaper's terms and conditions of acceptance of advertisements, which sometimes contain provisions relating to the recovery of legal costs. However, these conditions cannot always he enforced and are no substitute for a clear defence in law.
That is the alarm expressed by the Newspaper Society. It makes genuine points, to which the Minister may be able to reply.
My third point relates to my continued anxiety about the penalties attached to the offence. In Committee we discussed the inhibition placed on a defendent through not having the option of a trial by jury. I could not find a way to draft an amendment. In Committee the Minister gave a flat "No" when I asked him whether there was a way to ensure that the option of trial by jury could be available, although the maximum sentence is three months. That "No" cannot be right. Parliament is sovereign. If we wanted to provide the right of trial by jury for parking on a single yellow line, we could do so if we had the will. In 1964 the point was made strongly by the then Sir Peter Rawlinson, who is now in the other place. He is remembered by hon. Members as a former Conservative Attorney-General. When he was asked whether the House could amend the Obscene Publications Act 1964 with no imprisonment or fine, but merely the destruction of books, he said:
there is certainly no objection in principle to proceeding for forfeiture … being tried by a jury in a court of criminal jurisdiction. It would be an innovation, but that … should not prevent it from happening.— [Official Report, 3 June 1964, Vol. 695, c. 1216.]
When one argues today for the precious right of trial by jury, one is told that it automatically increases the term of imprisonment. I have done a little research into the matter

and found an example where that is not so. The Official Secrets Acts lay down penalties for conviction on indictment and conviction on summary jurisdiction. In both cases the term of imprisonment provided is not a minimum or a mandatory sentence, but a maximum. Therefore, it follows that it is not necessarily true that trial by jury automatically carries longer sentences of imprisonment.
The Minister also said in Committee that the courts were clogged up—those are not his words, but that is what he meant — and that it was not a practical possibility to draft legislation that would give the option to defendants. But it would be a sad day when Parliament said that it is not a practical possibility to uphold the Magna Carta's promise of trial by jury to all who stand in danger of losing their liberty. I hope that the Minister will take the points I have raised in the spirit in which made them and will reflect on them. Perhaps it will be possible to alter the Bill, or to have something said about it, in another place.
I have voiced some worries and warnings about the drafting of the Bill, but I do not doubt the Minister's and the Government's intentions. I know that the Minister wishes to leave the general issue of surrogacy until later, but, as it stands, the bill could effectively prevent any involvement in surrogacy by a non-profit making agency or any professional assistance being given to surrogates. It could catch innocent people and people who could help the commissioning parents and the surrogate mother. It could send surrogacy underground. All those would be retrograde steps which none of us would want.
Although I support the Bill, I hope that the Government will take those warnings to heart. I hope that the Department will reflect on them and will see whether they can reconsider the drafting of the Bill without destroying its intention, thus ensuring that we shall not have something on the statute book that we may regret later.

Mrs. Jill Knight: I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) that it is not my intention to filibuster, but it would be wrong if I did not express now my reservations and worries about the Bill.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said that the Bill would outlaw commercial profit from surrogacy, but, from my reading of the Bill, that cannot be right. As I understand it, no profit-making agency may set up in business to provide surrogate mothers, but there is nothing to prevent the woman herself from setting up in business as a surrogate mother. That is how I read clause 2. I shall listen carefully to my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister's reply, because I know that he has done his best with a Bill in a difficult area about which there is much public concern.
However, if I have read the Bill correctly, it would appear that a woman may become a surrogate mother and earn a profitable living. Money may change hands, as long as it goes to the woman directly from the would-be parents. That worries me greatly, because I find womb-leasing utterly repugnant, and I believe that the Warnock committee also took that view.
Non-profit making agencies are not covered by the Bill. Perhaps I have become cynical after many years in the House, but there are many ways to get round such a ruling. Will the police check the accounts of non-profit making


agency set up to make surrogacy arrangements? Will there be investigations to ensure that that agency is not benefiting from the arrangements that it makes?
I cannot help wondering about foreign agencies, because hon. Members will be well aware that it was an American agency that set up the Baby Cotton case which alerted the public to the dangers of what is happening. I do not see how the Bill could stop any arrangement made with a foreign agency, for example in Holland or America, which advertised for women to become surrogate mothers and relayed such information across the Atlantic.

Mr. Meadowcroft: The hon. Lady mentioned profit and asked whether accounts would be examined. As far as I am aware, profit is not mentioned as a criterion. The criterion is a "commercial basis". In the Bill "commercial basis" is defined as any payment that is received or given. That is rather different from the profit that the hon. Lady suggested. She may have mistaken "commercial basis", for "profit". They are different things under the Bill.

Mrs Knight: I do not know whether I am being oversimplistic or overcynical. As I understand it, under the Bill an agency cannot arrange a surrogate mother to bear a child for would-be parents for profit. An agency can make such arrangements provided that it does not make a profit.

Mr. Meadowcroft: No.

Mrs. Knight: I am delighted to hear that. I shall be interested to hear what my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health says. Outside the House the view is that non-profit making agencies are not covered by the Bill. I am anxious to know the true position.
The Bill covers only advertisements in the United Kingdom. I fully understand that we can cover only those advertisements. Agencies could advertise in America or Europe. A woman could be informed of those advertisements and make her arrangements with the agencies if they were not in the United Kingdom. The agencies might be in Jersey, Guernsey or somewhere like that. That would be handy.
I am worried about the suggestion that has been made — it was contained in the Warnock report—that surrogacy is all right provided that no profit is made from it. I questioned Dame Mary Warnock, as she then was, about that point. I said, "Have you ever known cases where women have borne children for nothing?" She said, "Oh, yes. I knew of a case where the eldest daughter, who was 16, had a child, and the family brought up the child as its own." That is not what I understand to be a surrogate mother. We are talking about financial arrangements by which a woman lets out her womb and conceives and bears a child which she will give up for money.
I have never known a case where a woman has been willing to do that for no return. That aspect of the matter worries me, because I can imagine difficulties in the family if a sister were involved. There could be problems later with the marriage. All kinds of difficulties would arise when the child was known to be the child of the person whom he or she calls aunt.
When we tinker with such matters we uncover difficulties which we have not fully understood. I salute

my right hon. and learned Friend for his efforts, but I must place on record my deep anxiety about how the Bill will work in practice.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: I am glad that we have finally reached the Third Reading of the Bill. I want to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) that if she reads the explanatory memorandum she will note that it says:
This Bill prohibits the recruitment of women as surrogate mothers and the negotiation of surrogacy arrangements by agencies acting on a commercial basis.
That is why I could not support the Liberal amendment. I should prefer there to be no surrogacy arrangements, but the Bill deals specifically only with commercial surrogacy arrangements.
The Bill also prohibits advertisements of or for surrogacy services, and it covers the whole of the United Kingdom. This is a very important point. The advertisements referred to in clause 3(2), (4) and (5) make it quite clear that the proprietor, editor or publisher of a newspaper or periodical published in the United Kingdom which contains an advertisement to which the section applies is guilty of an offence. Later we read what that offence is. Furthermore, the offence is not restricted to advertisements published knowingly, because the proprietor, editor and publisher should know what they are publishing.
The hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) referred to my involvement in the newspaper industry, in which I spent two and a half years. I do not regret what I said in Committee, and I repeat it now. I said that newspapers have a right to be protected. The letter referred to by the hon. Member for Barking from the Newspaper Society dated 10 May makes it quite clear that I was referring to the terms and conditions relating to the acceptance of advertisements. If advertisements are inserted which newspapers know contain this information they will be liable at a later date.
Clause 3(4) provides that one must not publish such advertisements. If one does, one is clearly committing an offence. If, therefore, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston pointed out, foreign advertisements are knowingly put into the shop windows of newsagents, they will be breaking the law. Similarly, anybody who knowingly causes advertisements in foreign newspapers to be distributed in the United Kingdom—this covers the point made by my hon. Friend—will be committing an offence. The distributor of a newspaper or periodical which is published abroad and sold in this country will be committing an offence.
The British Medical Association who wrote to me on 24 April 1985 said that from a medical point of view it completely supported the Government. I apologise to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed for not giving way earlier, but I knew that other Liberal Members wanted to speak. It is important to protect the baby and we need to provide an arrangement that will last. The Newspaper Society wrote the same letter to me as they wrote to the hon. Member for Barking. I share its concern about one point. It is extremely concerned that clause 3(2) imposes a strict liability on the publisher of any newspaper containing an advertisement referring to surrogacy arrangements. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health will, I know, allay that particular fear.


The Newspaper Society refers to inconsistency in the drafting of the clause. I believe that it is well drafted, but if the Newspaper Society is concerned about this point a reply is obviously required.

Mrs. Anna McCurley: (Renfrew, West and Inverclyde) I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Does he not think that all the panic about advertisements and the possibility of mail shots from the United States are completely unfounded? It is a question of scale. Very few people require surrogacy arrangements. Therefore it would be impracticable and uneconomic for anybody to indulge in this practice, even some fanatic in the United States.

Mr. Bruinvels: I agree with my hon. Friend, who has done so much about the surrogacy arrangements, who introduced a ten minute Bill almost a year ago and who has been a leading light in the campaign. The claimed advertisements will not happen. Arrangements for commercial reasons will not now be made. Of course, in the past in Scotland non-financial arrangements were made when a girl was unable to have a child. An agreement was reached with her sister, for example, and no finance was involved. Such arrangements are made and they will not be precluded under the Bill.
I welcome the Bill which I believe to be desperately wanted. The Bill is absolutely right for our society, for protecting our families and for ensuring that never again will the unseemly arrangements associated with the Baby Cotton case arise. It will ensure that when couples want a child they can have it in the normal way and that money will never enter into such sickening and unfortunate arrangements.

The Minister for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I finish the debate on a note of complete support for the Bill. I hope that the House of Lords will take note of that and that the Bill will enjoy a speedy passage.
On Third Reading, hon. Members have confirmed their support, and a number of Committee points have been repeated. Hon. Members are anxious not to hold up the measure, but the issue is so complex that worries have to be voiced about the exact drafting of various provisions. The Government will continue to pursue those anxieties and they will be examined closely in another place. The opportunity will be taken to tidy up certain matters.
The Bill addresses itself to two narrow issues. They are deliberately narrow so that we can achieve an agreed objective. We reserve for later the much wider and related issues of assistance for infertility, the legitimacy of children and the legality of many issues considered by the Warnock Commission.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) does not think that we can do much more in relation to voluntary surrogacy. I share his view that the private, informal arrangements that have existed since time immemorial will not be tackled by the law. The big question that the House will find difficult to resolve is that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) about agencies acting on a noncommercial, non-fee basis. A division of opinion is inevitable and the House will return to that issue later.
The Bill makes it illegal for commercial agencies to thrive in this country. That is done in a particular way, set

out in clause 2, which is aimed at making the negotiations and the assembling of information which would enable agreements to be negotiated unlawful if payment is received for those negotiations. I paraphrase the provisions loosely. Those interested must look at the exact text. The Bill also makes illegal advertising by anybody in a publication published in the United Kingdom or through a broadcast aimed at the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) expressed again her anxiety about the position of professionals such as solicitors, social workers or doctors who might accept a fee for giving certain advice to parties to voluntary surragacy arrangements and thereby fall foul of the Bill.
I shall attempt, as briefly as possible, to reiterate the points I made in Committee, in the hope of making matters a little clearer. The starting point must be that anyone who is trying to work out whether he or she is committing an offence under the Bill must look at clause 2. Clause 2(1) sets out under three subheadings the acts that are made unlawful. They will be unlawful if they are done on a commercial basis as defined in subsection (3), that is, if any payment is received for committing the act. Therefore, it is unlawful only if anyone receives a fee for being involved in negotiating arrangements as defined in that subsection.
To apply that to the points raised by the hon. Member for Barking, first, a lawyer or any other professional cannot really commit an offence if he is giving advice only to one party or the other. Any lawyer dealing only with the intending parents or only with the would-be surrogate mother cannot become involved in any negotiations. As long as advice given to one party or the other does not extend into negotiations or anything plainly aimed at negotiations as defined in clause 2, it would not be unlawful. Therefore, a lawyer can safely give advice to one party or the other provided that he deals only with the one side and has nothing to do with the other side.

Ms. Richardson: What the Minister is saying is interesting and helpful. But surely where two parties, in whatever sort of contract, have their own solicitors, there must come a time when they wish to communicate to make an agreement. Is the Minister saying that the solicitor for one party cannot write to the solicitor for the other party because the moment he does so he is negotiating and therefore flouting the law?

Mr. Clarke: I am saying just that. If one solicitor gets in contact with the other solicitor, and the moment that he does any of the acts defined in the clause, he will be guilty of a criminal offence if he takes a fee.
In drafting a Bill aimed at outlawing commercial surrogacy agencies, the most effective way to achieve that is to aim at the principal activity of those agencies, which is to bring together the parties or to compile information to enable them to be brought together—for example, lists of would-be surrogate mothers and lists of intending parents—and then to negotiate an agreement between the two. That is why the Bill is drafted to make that unlawful.
The moment we say that that is unlawful unless that person is a solicitor, a doctor or a professional social worker, we have an anomalous position and the law will be unenforceable.
While a solicitor is giving advice about the general law to one party or the other, who has come to him with his


worries, it is highly unlikely that he could fall foul of this legislation. The question arises of what happens if all three parties go to a solicitor together to get his advice. That solicitor will no doubt realise that he must address himself to the precise terms of what will be an Act of Parliament to know what he can or cannot do. He could certainly give general legal advice to all three parties and tell them what it is unlawful for them to do. But he would be committing an offence if he began negotiating an agreement or arrangement between the parties and took part in the interchange about terms and so on.
I do not think that I can explain the bill further than that. I underline to fact that, in practice, whether an act is unlawful will depend entirely on whether it falls within the definition in clause 2 and whether that act has been for payment. If hon. Members still have doubts, I ask them to consider how else one is to define the activities of a commercial agency in an effective way.

Mr. Beith: In supposing that a solicitor could give extensive advice on a surrogacy arrangement, is not the Minister relying on a narrow interpretation of clause 2(1) (c), which refers to compiling
any information with a view to its use in making, or negotiating the making of, surrogacy arrangements.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman talked of that as though it meant information such as the location of a possible mother. It could mean information about the existing law relating to that matter.

Mr. Clarke: I will reflect on that. What the hon. Gentleman puts forward is ingenious, but I do not think that if a solicitor, for instance, had copies of surrogacy arrangement legislation on his shelves, he would be likely successfully to be accused of compiling
information with a view to … making, or negotiating the making of, surrogacy arrangements.
Thus, if the parties all went to a solicitor and asked, "If we go ahead on our own with a surrogacy arrangement by which we hand over a fee from one to the other, what then?" He would be able to advise them, for example, that no penalty could apply to any of the three people, or he could try to advise them on whether the contract would be unenforceable as contrary to public policy, if we were not able to secure a clause in another place.
He would, therefore, be able to give general legal advice, but he would not be safe if he began to do anything which amounted to the making or negotiating of a surrogacy arrangement— if, for example, he began to draft a suitable form of contract and negotiate terms between the parties.
I have not had the advantage of seeing the letter from the Newspaper Society, I apologise if it has reached my Department but has not reached me. I appreciate that most hon. Members seem to have their copies. I will consider the letter when I receive it. My reaction to the point made about it by the hon. Member for Barking is that a newspaper can be liable for publishing a defamatory advertisement in its pages, just as it can be liable for publishing defamatory editorial matter. A newspaper would not escape entirely if some wholly defamatory advertisement aimed at any one of us appeared in its columns.
There is a distinction between the drafting of the Bill as it affects newspapers and broadcasters. That is because

publication in a newspaper means putting out the printed word. It is reasonable for the publishers and others to be held responsible for what they have allowed to appear on a printed page that they could have read.
For a broadcaster dealing with, say, a phone-in programme, it is possible for things to be blurted out over the air—for example, if a delay button has not been fitted—in a way that is completely beyond the control of the broadcaster. That is why "knowingly" appears in the Bill in relation to broadcasters and gives them a slightly advantaged position.
I accept that the hon. Member for Barking is concerned not so much with penalties as with the right to trial by jury of any parties who are brought to court under the Bill. It would not be impossible to draft a Bill to give a right to trial by jury even when there is no penalty of imprisonment. Indeed, if this measure were to provide for a penalty of imprisonment of six months or more, there would automatically, under other legislation, be a right to opt for trial by jury. That is not given by the Bill because the maximum penalty is three months.
As we pointed out in Committee, we are against the hon. Lady on this issue and do not see the case for trial by jury. There must be some, less serious, criminal matters which are reserved to the magistrates' court and which need to go to the Crown Court at the option of the accused. The nature of proceedings under the Bill is not likely to be similar to those in ordinary criminal proceedings.
The very existence of an Act of Parliament will stop any reputable commercial body from seeking to make a living in this way. Trying to break the law will become a rather foolish and high risk way of making a very limited living. If proceedings have to be brought, however, they are unlikely to turn on the issues of fact that often arise in criminal cases. I do not envisage people producing alibis or denying a large part of the factual information. Evidence will be given describing a particular state of affairs and the court will be called upon to decide whether it is unlawful within the terms of the legislation. That should be well within the competence of a magistrates court.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston raised a point that was not dealt with by the other three hon. Members who spoke—the position of the woman who offers herself as a surrogate mother and, as my hon. Friend fears, seeks to make a living by so doing. My hon. Friend is certainly correct in saying that under the Bill the woman could not be guilty of a criminal offence if she received a fee in that way, although she could be guilty of a criminal offence if she advertised her services the opportunities for making money in that way will be seriously inhibited.
It has not been made a criminal offence for a woman to enter into such an agreement because we were seeking consensus on this and that was the view of quite a large number, although not all, of the people who considered this aspect. In some circumstances, one could regard the surrogate mother as a victim or potential victim whom we should be seeking to protect. The would-be parents could also be seen as possible victims, their desire for a child being exploited by an agency arranging surrogate mothers.
To impose criminal penalties on a foolish woman who may have given way to the temptation of a large sum of money when she was in a vulnerable position is a contentious matter. To impose such penalties on the would-be parents, who may have been carried away by their desperate desire for a child, would also be a


contentious matter. Moreover, if any child was born as a result of such arrangements it would be a very unhappy start in life for a child if either its natural mother or its intended parents were promptly prosecuted. It would also be extremely difficult to preserve the confidentiality of the child in such circumstances.
I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston that we considered the point seriously, but we were sure that we should not command universal support in the House if we attached penalties of that kind to the mother and I think that it would be unwise to consider doing so at this stage.
I hope that I have dealt with all the points raised, although probably at too great a length, and I return to what remains the one common theme of this evening's debates on the Bill. Everyone supports the Bill and is anxious to see it on the Statute Book. There is absolutely clear agreement between us, which I am sure reflects the vast bulk of public opinion outside, that the sooner we have a law that stops commercial agencies and advertisements in this area, the better.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Prosecution of Offences Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 1

EXPENSES

'. —(1) There shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament such sums as the Attorney General may, with the consent of the Treasury, direct in respect of the expenditure incurred by the Director of Public Prosecutions in the discharge of his functions under this Act.
(2) Any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State or the Attorney General which is attributable to this Act shall be payable out of money provided by Parliament.'. —[Mr. Mellor.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The clause enables expenditure arising as a result of the Bill to be funded by parliamentary Vote. I commend it to the House.

Dr. John G. Blackburn: I wish to make just one point. Those who have read the Official Report of the Second Reading debate will know that I was particularly anxious to ensure that the cost of administering the Crown prosecution service did not fall within the orbit of the Home Office. It is extremely important that not only the financing but all the arrangements for the Crown prosecution service should be completely outside the orbit of the Home Office. I am delighted that the new clause has been introduced, and I welcome it warmly.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill

Clause 11

TRANSFER OF STAFF

Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 7, line 29, leave out 'and'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 2 and 3.

Mr. Mellor: These are technical amendments which make some changes to the regulations so that the existing contracts of employment of any employee who considers himself adversely affected by the regulations may be terminated so that he might, under certain circumstances, receive redundancy payments.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments made: No. 2, in page 7, line 30, at end insert
'; and
(c) for the termination of the employment with the authorities concerned of persons to whom the regulations apply (whether or not they are transferred in accordance with the regulations) and as to the consequences of that termination. '.
No. 3, in page 7, line 35, at end insert
`and may make such modifications in the application of any enactment as the Attorney General considers appropriate in connection with any provision of the regulations of a kind mentioned in subsection (2)(c) above'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 12

STAFF COMMISSION

Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 8, line 27, leave out 'one month' and insert 'three months'.
The amendment is made necessary by the welcome speed with which this measure has proceeded through the House. The period of three months instead of one month will give us that amount of extra time to ensure that the staff commission can be appointed within the time scale prescribed by the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 16

DEFENCE COSTS

The Solicitor-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 14, line 35, leave out `or' and insert
'(a)
(on an appeal under that Part against conviction—)

(i) substitutes a verdict of guilty of another offence;
(ii) in a case where a special verdict has been found, orders a different conclusion on the effect of that verdict to be recorded; or
(iii) is of the opinion that the case falls within paragraph (a) or (b) of section 6(1) of that Act (cases where the court substitutes a finding of insanity or unfitness to plead); or'.

The amendment enables the Court of Appeal to make a defendant's costs order where, on an appeal against conviction, it substitutes a verdict of guilty of another offence, orders the recording of a different conclusion of the effect of a special verdict, or substitutes a finding of insanity or unfitness to plead.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 20

REGULATIONS

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 20, line 38 after 'means', insert `(a)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 7.

The Solicitor-General: These are technical amendments consequent upon an amendment moved by the Lord Chancellor in another place.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment made: No. 7, in page 20, line 41, at end
insert 'or—
(b) an order made in a criminal case by the House of Lords for the payment of costs by a party to proceedings.'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 22

POWER OF SECRETARY OF STATE TO SET TIME LIMITS IN RELATION TO PRELIMINARY STAGES OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

Mr. John Morris: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 22, line 37, at end insert: `(2A) Regulations made pursuant to subsection (1) above shall be made either,

(a) as experimental regulations, which regulations shall be expressed to apply for a period not longer than 18 months; or
(b) as permanent regulations, which regulations shall be made by statutory instrument requiring an affirmative resolution of the House of Commons,

and in respect of any area specified in such regulations only one set of experimental regulations may be made.'.
We went over this ground in Committee. The object of the amendment is to ensure that there is ample opportunity for the House to consider and approve any permanent regulation and to limit temporary regulations for an experimental period. I thought in Committee that the Minister was showing some sympathy with the idea. I am glad that the amendment has been selected. I want to be sure that the Government will give an assurance that the House will have an opportunity to consider the proposals that emanate following the experiments that are now taking place.

Mr. Mellor: As the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) has said, I have considerable sympathy with his point. The only obstacle that stands in the way of acceptance of the amendment is the possibility that, as a result of the field trials, we may well think it expedient to introduce perhaps as many as half a dozen different time limits to cover different parts of the country. Obviously, circumstances vary from area to area. A time limit would be pointless unless it was specifically geared to the part of the country in question and toned up the system there.
I suggest that if a number of different time limit orders were needed, or they needed to be changed, it might be oppressive to require an affirmative resolution each time. Plainly, it would be a good idea to ensure that we had at least one debate, and possibly more. I give an undertaking to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I shall ensure that he is informed when we are ready to lay these orders. Arrangements can be made for a debate the first time and on subsequent occasions, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes. It may well be that after one or two occasions it would not be thought necessary that a change had to be made each time. I hope that, on that basis, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. John Morris: On the basis of that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 24, line 44, at end insert—
'(12A) For the purposes of section 29(3) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 (High Court to have power to make prerogative orders in relation to jurisdiction of Crown Court in matters which do not relate to trial on indictment) the jurisdiction conferred on the Crown Court by this section shall be taken to be part of its jurisdiction in matters other than those relating to trial on indictment.'.
I trailed this amendment in Committee. It does what I said then we intended to do. On that basis, I hope that it will be acceptable to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 23

DISCONTINUANCE OF PROCEEDINGS IN MAGISTRATES' COURTS

Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 25, line 17, leave out from 'discontinued' to end of line 19 and insert:
'with effect from the giving of that notice but may be revived by notice given by the accused under subsection (6) below.
(3A) Where, in the case of a person charged with an offence after being taken into custody without a warrant, the Director gives him notice, at a time when no magistrates' court has been informed of the charge, that the proceedings against him are discontinued, they shall be discontinued with effect from the giving of that notice.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 11, 12 and 14.

Mr. Mellor: Again, these amendments deal with matters in respect of which I revealed to the Committee the Government's intention to introduce provisions to this effect. I hope that they will be acceptable.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. II, in page 25, line 29, at end insert
'within the prescribed period; and where notice is so given the proceedings shall continue as if no notice had been given by the Director under subsection (3) above.'.
No. 12, in line 34, at end insert—
'(8A) In this section "prescribed" means prescribed by rules made under section 144 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.'. —[Mr. Mellor.]

Schedule 1

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Mr. Roger Sims: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 29, leave out lines 9 to 18.
The amendment raises a matter which has not been referred to earlier in proceedings in this House or another place.
In the administration of justice, the magistrates' courts face a difficulty in the impression that the public have of how they function. The police investigate an alleged offence, they charge an alleged offender, a summons is served on him to attend court — a court still known popularly as "the police court"—and in court the police conduct the case against the defendant.
Some defendants who are not familiar with the ways of the court—and some of those who are—are convinced that once the police have started investigations and pressed a charge, that is it, because the police and the court are part of one set-up to ensure that that person is convicted under the system.
We know that that is not so, that it is the job of the police to investigate a crime and to bring a case to court if they consider that there may be a case to answer, and that it is left to the court to decide—a magistrates' court or a higher court, all of whom form part of our independent judiciary. It is up to the court to decide guilt and to sentence.
Alas, that is not how it is always seen. This Bill is a very important step in clarifying the position by setting up an independent prosecution service—independent of the police and independent of the courts. They will be three quite separate entities.
My fear is that if the lines to which I refer remain in the Bill, that appearance of independence will be seriously prejudiced. That is not only my view, because I speak for the Magistrates' Association, which represents more than 90 per cent. of active magistrates in England and Wales — and its concern is shared by the Justices Clerks' Society and by the Association of Magisterial Officers, which I have the honour to advise.
As the Bill stands, in a case where there is a plea of guilty by letter, as frequently happens, the normal procedure will be for the clerk to read the prosecution statement. That will be the case even if the defendant appears in court having already pleaded guilty by letter, because presumably there will be no one present from the prosecution service, and the clerk will be expected to read the prosecution statement.
The magistrates and the court staff know that others have prepared that prosecution statement and that the clerk is simply the mouthpiece. But others who are not familiar with court procedures will not know that. What sort of impression will they get? What will be the impression of those sitting in the public gallery—the casual visitor, or those sitting waiting for their cases to be heard later in the morning? The impression will be given that the clerk is very much involved with prosecution procedure, and he will be seen to get up and apparently to present the case. This must undermine the image that we are trying to convey—that the prosecution service is independent.
I suspect that my hon. Friend will argue against this on grounds of expense, but I am not suggesting that it is necessary to have a highly qualified solicitor in court simply to deal with a strong of please of guilty by letter. However, an assistant in the prosecution service, or somebody from it who is not part of the court staff, should be seen to be presenting the case, even when it is a guilty plea by letter.
I hope that my hon. Friend will feel able to accept my amendment. If he is not, perhaps he can explain to the House the thinking behind the proposal in the Bill. Is it intended to cover exceptional circumstances? That is understandable, but if it is to be the general practice that the court clerk is expected to read out the prosecuting statement in the circumstances that I have described. that is regrettable, both in principle and in practice, and ii will impose upon the clerks a duty that they do not wish to have, and, for the reasons that I have set out, it is inappropriate for them to have.

Mr. Mellor: My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) has considerable experience, as a justice of the peace, of Home Office matters. Therefore, it is with some care that I deal with his points. I know that he is putting concerns that are felt by the Magistrates' Association and the Association of Magisterial Officers. I reassure him that in most circumstances courts will be attended by members of the prosecution service, and that will plainly be in everybody's interests. However, there are circumstances, when a court is dealing with pleas of guilty by letter, when it would not be contrary to the interests of justice if the clerk were to read out the agreed statement of facts.
We would be sensitive to any suggestion that we were placing an officer of the court in an invidious position. We would not allow matters of economics to compel us to take that action if we thought that we were doing that. While


economics are relevant in this sector as in any other, and we must govern our actions to som extent by this, we would not do anything just for the financial aspect alone.
However, there is some sensitivity about this, and officers need not be as troubled as they are. After all, we are dealing in the main with traffic offences, relatively trivial matters by the standards of the worst crimes in the criminal calendar, which the defendant has decided is a fair charge, and should be the subject of a guilty plea by letter.
It has always been the case that when the guilty plea by letter arrives, it will almost certainly contain some passages of mitigation, and it has always been the case that the clerk reads out those passages of mitigation. All that we are suggesting that he will do under these arrangements is also to read out an agreed statement of facts, which will already have been submitted to the defendant, and about which he will know before making a plea of guilty. If he were unhappy about any of those facts, he would either have asserted that by way of his plea, or by mitigation in his letter.
As it has not been suggested, and it would be wrong if it were suggested, that the clerk of the court was entering the arena on behalf of the defendant by reading the defendant's letter to the justices, it would also be wrong to suggest that the clerk was entering the lists on behalf of the prosecution by reading out the statement of fact.
On a proper analysis, I believe that the statement of facts, once they are agreed by the defendant, becomes more than a partisan assertion. They become the agreed facts of the matter.
I hope that, on that basis, my hon. Friend will see that there is quite a compelling case for doing what we do. Although one is always reluctant to be at odds with any part of the magistracy or its clerks, it would be difficult for me to do as he asks. I hope that my explanation has been helpful and that on that basis he will agree to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Sims: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his explanation. I accept that the defendant would be well aware of the situation, and the statement being read out by the clerk would be an agreed statement. My concern was the impression that the general public might have as to the involvement of the clerk in the prosecution procedure. I have explained the fears that the magistracy and the magistrates' clerks have. My hon. Friend has done his best to put those fears at rest. I hope that in the event they will prove to be unfounded. In the light of what my hon. Friend has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 14, in page 29, line 36 at end insert—
'Contempt of Court Act 1981 (c.49)
3A. In paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 to the Contempt of Court Act 1981 (meaning of "discontinuance" in relation to criminal proceedings), the following sub-paragraph shall be inserted after sub-paragraph (a)—
"(aa) in England and Wales, if they are discontinued by virtue of section 23 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985".
3B. After paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 to that Act there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
9A Where proceedings in England and Wales have been discontinued by virtue of section 23 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, but notice is given by the accused under

subsection (6) of that section to the effect that he wants the proceedings to continue, they become active again with the giving of that notice.".'.

No. 17, in page 30, line 6 leave out `(1)' and insert `(2)'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 30, leave out lines 29 to 44 and insert—
'(5) For paragraphs 6 and 7 there shall be substituted the following—
6. Where the criminal division of the Court of Appeal makes an order as to costs to be paid by—

(a) an appellant;
(b) an applicant for leave to appeal to that court; or
(c) in the case of an application for leave to appeal to the House of Lords, an applicant who was the appellant before the criminal division.".'.

This is a technical amendment substituting a new paragraph. It deals with the enforcement of cost orders made by the Court of Appeal. Cost orders made by the House of Lords will be enforced as part of the inherent jurisdiction of that House.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 16, in page 31, line 13, leave out 'award' and insert 'order'. — [The Solicitor-General.]

Schedule 2

REPEALS

Amendment made: No. 18, in page 32, line 26, leave out '32(1)' and insert `32(2)'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

Mr. John Morris: The Bill has been improved during the legislative process. I, for one, welcome very much what was achieved in another place, in that acquitted defendants in summary trials are able to obtain their costs. That is a major improvement.
Great as is the temptation, I do not propose to go through the Bill at this late hour, save to say that in our deliberations we concentrated on three matters—costs, children, and time limits, to which we returned tonight. The Bill went through its processes speedily, speedier than most of us had anticipated. Some organisations felt that had there been more time available, some of their views might have had further consideration.
I wrote to the Solicitor-General about a document that I had received from Mr. John Harrison of the Paddington Law Centre, and the hon. and learned Gentleman kindly replied to me on 29 April, on the eve of the last consideration of the Bill, about the fear of Mr. Harrison that the Bill inadvertently abolished the tort of malicious prosecution or at least substantially reduced its scope. The hon. and learned Gentleman kindly went through the arguments. What had escaped Mr. Harrison was the fact that the initial decision whether to institute proceedings continued to be taken by the police, so for the most part it would appear that those fears were dealt with by the hon. and learned Gentleman. There remained a small proportion of cases where the Director of Public Prosecutions instituted prosecutions. The Solicitor-General set out the record and reputation of the Director and explained the unlikelihood of him being sued. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will explain further


the extent of the reduction to which proceedings in tort may be instituted for malicious prosecution. If he does so, we shall know exactly what has been done.
I spent much time on Second Reading talking about accountability and I ended by saying that Parliament will have only begun its task in establishing the machinery of accountability when the Bill is enacted. We shall have to monitor its workings in the years ahead. I welcome the Bill and wish it well, because its main purpose is to establish a prosecution service that is independent of the police, which is what many on both sides of the House have talked about for a long time. I am pleased that that has been achieved tonight.

12 midnight

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: At this late hour I am sure that the Ministers, who have worked on the Bill from Committee until this stage, will not welcome lengthy contributions. Consequently, my remarks will be brief.
The Bill makes sense, and I welcome it. I regret the entire removal of the prosecution function from the police service because over the years, with its faults, it has been a relatively efficient and not terribly expensive service. However, the House has been right to agree to the proposals contained in the Bill.
I wish to ask my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General three general questions. First, "criminal proceedings" are henceforth to be the responsibility of the prosecution service and no longer that of the police. Will this relieve the police of responsibility for all criminal proceedings that take place in the courts? Is it intended that "criminal" shall be an all-embracing definition covering any breach of common and statute law, including minor motoring offences? Will it remove from the responsibilities of the police administrative matters that are dealt with in the magistrates' courts such as firearm certificates, liquor licensing and objections to occasional licences and extensions, which currently involve police time? If the prosecution service is to take over criminal matters, let it take them all over.
I am concerned about resources. If the Bill is to achieve its main intention, it is essential that all court work, not most of it, he undertaken by the new service. Any savings which do not release the police from all forms of advocacy will he insignificant. It is the Government's judgment that 600 police officers, mostly of supervisory rank, will be freed by the Bill. They will not be relieved of advocacy work unless all the minor matters are undertaken by the prosecution service.
Secondly, in clause 13 a "fair contribution" is to be made by other bodies for part of the service. The inference is that, in addition to the money from the Government, other funds will be extracted, perhaps properly, from county councils or the police authority. At present budgets in the police service are tight. Some of my hon. Friends may be shocked to hear that throughout the country police numbers are not rising, but falling sharply. Almost 1,500 officers fewer are now in post than there should be according to establishment figures. We were elected to achieve establishment figures. I recognise, however, that there has been a substantial increase on previous years.
If a "fair contribution" is to be extracted from police authorities, where is the money to come from? Is it to come from not recruiting more policemen or not building more police stations? I have read the Committee reports,

but I have not seen a detailed quantification of the amount of money that the phrase "fair contribution" means. I should like some assurance from my hon. and learned Friend that those contributions will not be extracted from police budgets if it means less police man power when the service is as stretched as it is today.
My final point, on which I should like my hon. and learned Friend to comment, is the matter of delays in bringing cases to trial. My hon. and learned Friend will recall that last year the Home Affairs Select Committee reported on those inordinate delays — they were commented on frequently in Committee — but was misguided in that it appeared to suggest that each and every delay in bringing often complex cases to trial was occasioned by the prosecution. I am willing to accept that many, and perhaps most, delays arise because of the prosecution, and the terms of the Bill appear to follow that assumption. However, anyone with a little experience in legal affairs—I am so advised by the police service—will accept that often those delays are occasioned by the defence.
I hope that the Bill is even handed, but I do not read it that way. I should like my hon. and learned Friend to comment on the view of the Police Federation that the Bill is not even handed, that it implies that all delays arise from prosecution and that it does not provide for effective pressure on the defence to get a move on.
I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will be able to deal with those questions. I join the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) in welcoming the general drift of the Bill.

Mr. Alex Carlile: The fact that little controversy has surrounded the stages of the Bill does not mean that it is perfect. It introduces a most welcome and much awaited element of independence into the prosecuting function. We look forward with confidence to the development of that independence. I hope that when the Government monitor the way in which the independent prosecution service operates, and if it works well, they will consider the possibility of extending its role to include other forms of prosecution, such as trading standards' prosecutions and other functions which are administered at considerable expense by local authorities, which are not always best equipped to deal with them.
The most significant improvement was made in the other place when an absurd provision to give the prosecution the power to make theoretical appeal against certain sentences was removed. I welcome that removal, but I hope that we shall have an assurance from the Government that that proposal will not be regurgitated in the next Session of Parliament.
I join those who have expressed their good wishes to the Bill, and I hope that it will prove to be at least the basis of the success which most of us believe it will be.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I welcome the Bill, in that, since the peak age of offending is 15, it seems reasonable on Third Reading to spend some time on the implications of the Bill for juveniles. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Minister said that the Director of Public Prosecutions was well seized of the special considerations affecting juveniles and of the implications for training and development of the new service. He said that he had undertaken that where there


is sufficient juvenile court work to justify specialisation, whether whole time or part time, officers of the new service will be assigned and trained specially to deal with juvenile cases.
That is some assurance, but there is anxiety among those used to dealing with the juvenile courts that the Bill will lead to further delays. Slow justice is poor justice for everybody, but especially for juveniles. They have great difficulty in understanding the process, and the strain on them and their families while waiting for a court hearing is great and potentially damaging. In the case of juveniles, the damage of a case coming to court with insufficient evidence is most harmful, and no doubt the new Bill will assist in that area.
I have been a magistrate in an area where there was special difficulty between the police and the local community, and I would welcome the clear separation of the police having to apprehend and investigate crimes, but the decision to prosecute being made elsewhere. But I would not wish to underestimate the important expertise that many police juvenile bureaux have developed over the years in knowing the local circumstances and in understanding juvenile crime in context. It would be a shame if an unintended consequence of the Bill was that the widespread and variable use of cautioning was undermined. We are agreed that, for juveniles, prevention and diversion are essential.
In conclusion, I welcome the Bill and I hope that it is but a first step to an overall review of the juvenile justice system.

Dr. John G. Blackburn: Unashamedly, I take a few minutes of the time of the House, because my involvement in the Bill goes back to 1979, when the roots of what we are debating started. That was the Royal Commission on Criminal Evidence, under the chairmanship of Sir Cyril Phillips. Then I came across the fundamentals of this move in the Home Affairs Select Committee, and yet again I look to the Government Front Bench and remember with great pleasure the many weeks we spent together in Committee on the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, which eventually fell immediately before the general election. I have great pleasure, as I am sure do all hon. Members, in seeing this measure come before the House. I also have a great sense of duty fulfilled.
However, I must make two points which I hope my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General will consider in the days ahead. I was especially impressed by the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), who made the plea that evenhandedness should saturate the pages of the Bill. It will not come as a surprise for those hon. Members who served in Committee to hear that my next words will be in direct conflict with the comments of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile).
I have had the opportunity of speaking with magistrates who have expressed genuine anxiety about some sentencing procedures. I pay a warm, generous and sincere tribute to the members of the bench who give up their time to administer justice in the courts. When magistrates have a defendant before them who they believe should receive a higher sentence they have the power, which they exercise, to commit that person to a higher court for

sentence. Magistrates feel frustrated by the fact that under the new public prosecution system people will receive a lighter sentence than they would from the magistrates.
Under clause 16 we have a right of appeal against conviction or severity of sentence. I have consistently held the view that the Crown prosecutor should equally have the right to appeal against the leniency of a sentence. That point was well ventilated on Second Reading and in Committee. Even at this stage it is something that could be considered. I commend that point to my hon. and learned Friend, because it is one that has been debated since the Bill was conceived.

Mr. Sims: I shall avoid the temptation of pursuing the point mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn). I know that his comments about the work done by magistrates will be appreciated. I can say that they are well deserved, because I am now precluded by the rules laid down by my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor from sitting on my Bench, much as I should like to do so.
I invite my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General to tell us to what extent he anticipates court staff will be involved in the administration of the prosecution service. If that seems a strange question, I ask it because I understand that informal approaches have been made to court staff about the extent to which their accounting facilities might be used by the prosecuting service. I understand that in some circumstances that might be convenient; for example, for paying the expenses of prosecution witnesses and such matters.
On principle, I should have thought it better, for reasons that I have already given, to keep the prosecution service and the court staff separate. If, however, it is found convenient to use the court staff for some aspect of the prosecuting service's work, I hope that the Home Office will bear in mind the fact that court staff are already heavily engaged, with limited numbers, and that if extra work is to be imposed upon them, the resources to do that work should be made available.

The Solicitor-General: I am grateful for the expressions of support and approval that have come from so many of those who have spoken on Third Reading. The Bill primarily implements the decision of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to establish an independent prosecuting service for England and Wales. The Bill has, as we are aware, also provided a useful vehicle to make important and necessary changes in the arrangements for costs in relation to criminal cases and to bring into the English system measures analogous to those which have operated for a long time in Scotland relating to delays in bringing cases to trial.
I have been asked to reply to a number of individual points. In Committee the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) asked about the fears which had been expressed that, inadvertently, the Bill might have abolished the common law tort of malicious prosecution, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman fairly summarised the reply that I gave to him then. At this time of night I think that I can usefully express it in this way.
It was thought that because under the provisions of the Bill prosecutions were to be conducted by the prosecution service it would no longer be possible to sue the police for


the tort of malicious prosecution. However, as I explained to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that argument failed to take account of the fact that responsibility for the institution of proceedings will remain, under the provisions of the Bill, with the police. It will be recalled that the recommendation of the Philips Royal Commission was that a distinction should be made between the functions of the police, which were respectively the investigation of offences and the institution of proceedings — that is, charging suspects — and the functions of conducting the prosecution and taking the decisions that are relevant to prosecutions once a charge has been laid. Those latter responsibilities are to be conducted by the independent Crown prosecution service.
There is, therefore, no effective change in the position of the director. Certain matters will fall to be considered by him, and in rare cases he will be empowered to institute and will in practice institute proceedings. I accept that in those circumstances it would be difficult successfully to bring proceedings against the director, but, as I pointed out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that is a measure of the respect in which the director is held by reason of the record for impartiality and for diligence that he has acquired over the years in the course of the conduct of his duties. Therefore, we do not believe that there is any need to fear that inadvertently the Bill has abolished the tort of malicious prosecution or that it has abolished the means whereby the police can be prosecuted for malicious prosecution in a proper case.
On the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) on behalf of the Police Federation, whose interests he so diligently represents, he asked, first, whether the criminal proceedings referred to in the Bill will be all-embracing, in the sense that the independent service will be responsible for every offence committed under any statute which can strictly be described as a criminal statute. Strictly speaking, the answer is no. Firearms certificates and liquor licensing applications will continue to be dealt with separately and will be the responsibility of the police, as will minor motoring offences. That is a sensible division of responsibility. I do not believe that the information that I have given contains any surprises.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds also referred to the equivalent of 600 full-time police officers being saved by the new provisions. That calculation was made on the basis that the new service will undertake functions which do not include such minor matters as firearms certificates and liquor licensing applications, to which I have already referred.
I was asked about the cost referred to in clause 13 and whether it would involve the resource currently allocated to the police. Clause 13 requires that the Secretary of State shall make "a fair contribution" and provides for disputes to be resolved. The balance will have to be found by the local authority, which will have to decide from where that balance can be found. In a slip of the tongue earlier I added, motoring offences to the category which included fire arms applications and licensing matters. That was an inadvertent slip, for which I apologise. Motoring offences will be the responsibility of the new service.
I was asked about the new provisions on time limits. The Scottish law provisions relate to time limits which have to be observed by the prosecution at all stages of the prosecution process. The object is to ensure that delays for which the prosecution is responsible are not allowed to

result in the accused person being denied trial. The same pattern is followed in the Bill. In some cases the defendant is responsible for delays, but the defendant usually pays the cost of being in prison pending trial on remand. The Bill deals with delays caused by the prosecution.
I am grateful for the welcome which the hon and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) gave to the Bill. A major change is being made and much remains to be finalised in regulations to be made by the Attorney-General. The report of the management consultants, published by the Home Secretary only last Friday, has still to be considered in detail before we can decide on the precise form of the service.
I agree that a body of expert and experienced people should remain to deal with juvenile crime. It is not necessary to extend the Bill's provisions, but I acknowledge that juvenile crime is an important part of the responsibilities of those who have to deal with criminal justice.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn) I recall with pleasure the many weeks that we spent examining another Bill, when I learnt to enjoy and to value his contributions.
I realise that there is a real sense of public concern about sentencing. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, in his Second Reading speech, said that it was entirely proper that the public should be concerned in these matters and that the House and the Government should recognise that concern.
My hon. Friend said that, on occasions, magistrates were disappointed with the sentence passed by the Crown court. I do not doubt that that may happen, but Parliament has laid down a procedure whereby the Crown court considers matters afresh. I do not think that my hon. Friend would wish to deny it the independence and judgment which the statute has conferred upon it and hold that it could impose only a sentence which was in excess of what the magistrates may, by law, impose.
I differ from my hon. Friend when he argues about a right of appeal by the prosecutor against too lenient a sentence. The Government hold to the view that it is important to distinguish between the proper function of a prosecutor and the proper function of the judiciary. It is the judiciary, quite independent of any other influence, that should deal with sentencing. It would be sad if the prosecution were to identify itself with sentencing. That could lead to many undesirable and dangerous developments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) asked what would be the extent of court staff involvement in the arrangements for the operation of the Bill. It is not possible to give a clear answer. He knows that the management consultants' report was published recently, and we shall have to decide what is the best, the most economic and the most effective way to deal with such matters as witnesses' expenses. I take his point about the importance of distancing court staff from association with the prosecution. I understand his anxiety in that regard.
I do not wish to detain the House. The provisions of the Bill are well known to hon. Members in the Chamber tonight. I reiterate only the pleasure of the Government in the Bill meeting with general approval from all sides of the House. My right hon. and learned Friend and I are grateful for the constructive and consistently helpful contributions of the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon and all who have taken part in our debates. They have enabled


us to make rapid progress with a Bill that is of major value and importance to our criminal justice system. I commend its Third Reading to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

PROCEDURE

Ordered,

That the Standing Order of 20 March 1984 relating to the nomination of the Procedure Committee be amended, by leaving out Mr. Allen Adams and Mr. Jim Callaghan and inserting Mr. Gregor MacKenzie and Mr. John Golding.—[Mr. Boscawen.]

Great Britain (Economic Divide)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boscawen.]

Mr. Tom Pendry: The words of Lord Stockton in another place in November last year echoed the thoughts of millions of people in this country when he said:
it breaks my heart to see what is happening in our country today." — [Official Report, House of Lords, 13 November 1984; Vol. 457, c. 240.]
Without any doubt, Britain is a divided country and becoming more so with this Government's divisive economic strategy that is superimposing new inequalities on the traditional regional disparities.
In 1979 the Prime Minister pledged to rebuild our economy and to reunite a divided and disillusioned people. In truth, the nation has never been more torn and separated than it is today. From the outset, I wish to make it clear that the social and economic deprivation rampant in our society are not confined to the north. When my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and I toured the country as regional spokesmen for the Labour party before the last general election we saw problems in the south-east as great as any experienced in the north. In London, the Medway towns, the Isle of Thanet, Portsmouth, parts of the south-west and Cornwall, we saw those problems writ large. Nevertheless, the southern parts of the country have a significantly better deal than the areas in the north-west, the north-east, Yorkshire, Humberside and the midlands.
Both provinces—for that is, in effect, what they are — have approximately the same populations; 23·5 million in the north and 23·3 million in the south, namely, in the south-east, the south-west and East Anglia. But the economy of the southern province is significantly larger. Its GDP in 1981 was £13 billion greater than the GDP in the northern province. In total personal income terms, there is £7 million less in the north than in the south.
Low pay, compounded by unemployment, means that a southerner has £100 in his pocket for every £88 in a northerner's pocket. Male average weekly earnings in Greater London in April 1983 we're £200 whereas in Greater Manchester they were £160. The proportion of full-time male workers in Greater Manchester earning less than £75 a week was double the figure for Greater London in the same period.
Since 1979, the northern region has lost over 784,000 jobs, or 42 per cent., of total job losses in the United Kingdom. Today, there are more manufacturing jobs in the south than in the so-called industrial north. However deeply ingrained were the traditional problems of the regions prior to 1979, they have been intensified since then.
The scale of job losses has heightened the intensity of the regional problems. Since May 1979, 1·5 million manufacturing jobs have been lost, with an unprecedented level of redundancies. For every redundancy in the southern province during the conservatives' reign, there have been two in the north. The northerners have suffered 190,000 more redundancies than have those in the southern province. The north-west has been hit most of all, with 111,000 redundancies since 1979.
When the Conservatives came to office, the north-west had 1·1 per cent. higher than the national average


unemployment rate. Today it is 2·6 per cent., and it is 6 per cent. higher than in the south-east. The problems of the northern region are further compounded by a tax on public spending imposed by the Government, much of which has been centred on housing. Between 1979 and 1983, the number of housing starts fell by more than 38,000, and 83 per cent. of those cuts were concentrated on the northern province.
Cuts in housing capital expenditure, also an element of regional injustice, have been compounded by cuts in housing benefit. About 1·5 million people have lost housing benefit completely and 4·5 million have been affected in some way. Again, the northern province has been pushed into another downward spiral.
In local authority expenditure, the Government's logic belies belief. Their understanding of need is, to say the least, puzzling. They say that the northern province is less in need than the southern province. Although 170,000 more people live in the north, it has 375,000 more pupils to teach, has vastly more poverty by any criteria, has more single-parent families, according to the Black report, and it has areas such as Tameside, one of the most deprived health districts in the country, and much more unemployment. Yet in the view of the Department of the Environment the local authorities in the north need less help than those in the south. I put it to the House that that is nonsense.
With the new Right at the helm, what chance have the poorer regions? I wish the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym) luck with his Centre Forward group—he will need it. Very few Tory Members from the north and the north west seem to want to join that group and to redress the imbalance in our society. My own authority of Tameside is monitoring the activities of Tory Members in the north-west and the reports make interesting but disturbing reading, especially for those of their constituents who are living on or near the poverty line. Naturally, they will be rumbled before or at the next election, but in the meantime their actions merely widen the gap between north and south and make areas such as the north-west even poorer.
In the short time allotted for an Adjournment debate it is impossible to set out all the arguments and to bring home the full impact of the Government's policies on the poorer regions. Until the Government recognise the need for a regional dimension in planning and public expenditure, and reverse their narrow monetary policies, the two parts of our nation will be pulled ever further apart.
If there was a crowning act of madness by the Government which would exacerbate the problems of the division still further, it would be to develop Stansted airport at the expense of Manchester airport. Is it really a priority of our nation to encourage the creation of 25,000 jobs in rural Essex where they are not wanted when all the logic calls for the development of Manchester airport where jobs are vital? I hope that the Minister will assure the House that the Government do not intend to take that course. I hope that he will also announce a change of course on the economic front, although I very much doubt it.
With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to conclude my remarks at this point so as to allow some time for my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). No one in the House

has spoken up more for the people of Tameside and the north-west than my right hon. Friend, and I hope that the Minister will heed what he says.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: The House will have listened with great interest to what my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) has said about Britain being a divided country. That fact is becoming ever more widely accepted—and fact it is, as my hon. Friend so clearly showed. Not only are people becoming more aware of it. In the north they are becoming angry about it. That is the major change that has taken place.
In the 20 years that I have been Member of Parliament for Ashton-under-Lyne I have witnessed many complaints, but I have never before witnessed such a level of consciousness and of frustration as, day after day, people see on their television screens the kind of life being Lived in the more favoured part of the country.
The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who represents a constituency in the south-east, put the matter very well when he said that the south-east was overdominant. That is the situation today. Up to 40 per cent. of the firms in my constituency have closed since 1979. The firms in my area are not large firms. They are small firms, which the Government are supposed to support. They are neither high tech nor low tech—just middle tech, but doing a valuable job for their employees, their customers and their town.
Those firms find themselves in great difficulty because of the enormous advantages enjoyed by the south-east. They watch with horror as Johnson Matthey Barkers receive £75 million while the firms in my constituency get nothing. They see with growing awareness the £12 billion a year that passes out of our country via the City of London to other countries. This money, which could and should have been used to expand our industrial base in the north, is used to finance other economies.
These firms know full well that the high value of the pound is a great disadvantage to the manufacturing sector. My area earns its living from manufacturing industry. It does not have the international banking or financial operations of the City. The people earn their living by making and selling goods. They see that the way in which the economy has been run has favoured financial rather than industrial operations. They note full well that this system has no particular bearing on the needs of the country as a whole.
I ask more Ministers to come to the north. If one gets out at Piccadilly station in Manchester and walks around the streets there, one sees the difference between that area and London and the south-east generally. One does not need statistics or facts to note that great difference; one can see with it with one's eyes. I have drawn attention to the fact that because of economic stringencies, certain roads in my area are not looked after in the same way as roads elsewere.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde rightly drew attention to the discussions on Stansted airport. There will be extreme anger and dismay in the whole of the north-west if there is expansion in the more favoured parts of the country again. It is not just a matter of deciding where the airport should be. A whole area could use a successful airport based upon Manchester which used the initiative of the people of the north-west.
Britain is a divided country, and a nation cannot be operated in that way. There is a growing feeling that Britain is divided. Sooner or later, unless the process is reversed, there will be grave problems with regard to unity. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will offer us some hope that this reversal will come about shortly.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. John Butcher): It is legitimate for the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) and the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) to raise this topic in the House, albeit on the Adjournment. I am sure that they agree that the subject is huge, wide and complex. Perhaps, we should have more time to debate the complex reasons behind the discrepancy in the economic performance of the various regions of Great Britain.
A number of figures have been bandied around. I put it to the House and to those who are concerned about discrepancies in economic performance that there is something rather chilling in the following figures: in 1964, the United Kingdom had 14 per cent. of the share of world trade in internationally tradeable goods and services; by 1978 that figure had fallen to 8 per cent.
The CBI tells us—and I am sure that we all believe the integrity of its figures—that for each 1 per cent. of loss in our share of world trade, Britain exported 250,000 jobs. From that one factor alone, we have exported 1·5 million jobs.
I ask hon. Members to consider other good, hard, data produced by the Labour party in its finance and economic affairs committee report in 1976, which, I am advised, pointed out that by 1980 there could be 2·5 million people unemployed in the United Kingdom. The committee cited all sorts of factors—the demographic factor, the loss of competitiveness, the erosion of the advantages that we gained through successive devaluations, and so forth. But, just as I agree with hon. Members that it is the manufacturing sector which has borne the brunt of Britain's decline in job opportunities through loss of world market share, the recession and other factors, I hope that they will agree that we have a very complex set of clauses on our hands and that it is disingenuous for any hon. Member to lay the blame for the totality of the 3·25 million unemployed at the door of the current Administration.
I leave those thoughts with the House only by way of inviting a further response by hon. Members when we discuss this very serious issue.
First, let me agree that there are differences between the economic situations of various parts of Great Britain. Of course there are economic differences, as there are geographical, social and cultural differences. They are by no means a new phenomenon.
Variations in, for example, unemployment rates and gross domestic product per head of population have existed for a long time. For many years, unemployment rates in the northern regions have tended to be higher than in the south and midlands. Since 1979, unemployment in the west midlands has also been above the national average, but the causes of the problems of that region go back well beyond that year. I shall come back to unemployment a little later in my speech.
Before I do that, let me look at some of the other aspects of this so-called divide. If we look at GDP, we see that the south-east is the only region with above average GDP per head. The region contains 31 per cent. of our population and contributes 37 per cent. of GDP. But, again, although there have been changes in the pattern of GDP per head in the past decade or so, there have long been significant differences between regions.
A further major point about the north-south differences is that the contrast between a depressed north and a prosperous south can be overstated. In saying this, I do not want to deny what I have just acknowledged in the generality. As a generalisation, there are significant and long-established differences, as shown by various methods of measuring economic wellbeing between the south and the north. Various remedies have been tried by successive Governments to solve the problem, and the evidence suggests that a lot of extra jobs have been created in the assisted areas—of the order of 500,000 by the early 1980s — but, despite this massive programme of assistance, the problem still persists. This is a reflection of the deep-rooted causes of regional economic disparities.
Regional economic problems used to be largely ascribed to dependence on low growth or no growth industries, and to peripherality—that is, distance from main markets. Over the last two decades there have been significant changes in the industrial structure of the assisted areas, in part as a result of the operation of regional policy, and the differences are now less marked. Nevertheless, in some cases the problems of an area can still quite clearly be attributed to the decline of a major industry in the locality. There is no preordained law which states which industries go into decline, and therefore it is folly to describe whole industries as sunset industries. In the words of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, there is no such thing as a sunset industry; there are only sunset managements. Differences in performance by companies in the same sector beg a whole series of questions, many of which are far too complex and perhaps controversial to be dealt with in an Adjournment debate.
With improvements in transport links, the nature of the peripherality problem has changed. Fast road links are more comprehensive than they were 20 and 30 years ago, though many business men in the east and west midlands would give their eye teeth for a cross-country route to match the Liverpool-Manchester-Hull motorway capacity. The peripherality problem today may rather be one of keeping in touch with the myriad decisions made by business contacts and maintaining awareness of market opportunities in the major commercial centres, most significantly in the south-east, but even in this area technology is coming to the rescue. The provision of telecommunications infrastructure is as important for today and for the future as the development of railways was in the 19th century, and the upgrading of the road network has been in the past decades.
More recently, academic research has pointed to the existence of other structural characteristics and perfomance measures which may help to explain variations in the economic performance between regions. There is evidence that, particularly in relation to the southeast, many of the assisted areas have a somewhat unfavourable rate of product innovation and an industrial milieu less conducive to successful new firm formation. Those features are thought to be related in part to he relatively low numbers of managerial and professional


people resident in some assisted areas, and to a high level of dependence on manufacturing employment in branch plants owned by national or internatinal companies whose United Kingdom headquarters and research and development facilities are concentrated in the south-east. The low proportion of new firm starts in the assisted areas is particularly marked. In 1983, the four northern regions accounted for 29 per cent. of business starts as against their 36 per cent. share of working population.

Mr. Tom Normanton: There can be no doubt on either side of the House that there has been for a long time growing concern about what is called the north-south syndrome. Is it not true to say two things? First, to describe the north as a wilderness dying is a complete distortion of the reality of the facts. In that context, I quote the example of Stockport where, until a year ago, successful efforts were made by the Conservative-controlled council in attracting new and expanding industries. Secondly, is it not wrong to categorise the north as being beyond hope? There are many prospects for expansion of the new types of industry. These are the ones about which we are talking, and we should be bringing the national and European interest to be more aware of them.

Mr. Butcher: I recognise the long-standing and distinguished work that my hon. Friend has put in on behalf of the north-west region as a whole. I agree that it is ludicrous to categorise a whole region in a particular way. Within any region there may be significant areas of dynamism and growth. Labour Members have made a political point tonight and seem to be conniving in a campaign mounted by the Thameside borough council to target north-western Conservative Members of Parliament. Therefore, I have to respond in kind by saying that if the Stockport idea, were to be adopted, in some of the Labour-controlled local authorities there would be grounds for more optimism about attracting more business for existing firms within those localities.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: rose—

Mr. Butcher: If the hon. Gentleman had come in earlier, we might have been able to come to an arrangement, but I have much information to respond to, and there have been two contributions from the Labour Benches.
I shall look particularly at the issue of the great divide as it has been described by a report published and put together by the Tameside district council. I believe that I am quoting accurately the leader of that council, Councillor Oldham, as he in turn was reported in the Ashton-under-Lyne Reporter on 17 April, as follows:
'This Government, aided by people such as our own North West Tory MPs, has damaged the fabric of the North to a greater degree than the South.
To a certain extent that tends to give the game away, that that report is mainly a propaganda exercise. It seems to be short on economics and long on politics. The leader of the council was further quoted in the newspaper as follows:

'Places like Tameside have ratepayers who are suffering as a result of this. If we can stop it, and expose it, it will be to their benefit, because they will pick up the extra cash and support that is due to them
That is very cynical nonsense. If we look at the record, we find that, for example with block grants, the rate support grant system does much to compensate the differences in wealth and social problems between the north and the south. If block grant were paid on rate bills, some £3 billion would go to the north—in this case including the east and west midlands—and £5·5 billion to the south. However, it is distributed to compensate areas with lower rateable resources and higher incidence of needs. In practice nearly £5 billion goes to the north.
Similarly, when we talk of doing down the ratepayer, we should look carefully at the Tameside record. It did not do too badly out of the 1985–86 rate support grant settlement. While it gained only a 1 per cent. increase in its spending target, its block grant entitlement for keeping to target this year— about £47 million— was slightly more than it received in 1984–85. However, the council has decided to overspend its target by 3·3 per cent. and will therefore suffer grant loss or penalty of about £5 million. As a consequence, the council had to increase the rates by 10 per cent. The rise could have been lower if Tameside had kept to the Government's guidelines. In so doing, it could have looked after the interests of the commercial and industrial ratepayers in the borough.
Even more spectacular than that, we have to note a figure that has been accepted in the past in recent debates. Since the general election in 1979, when this Administration first took power, some £2,700 million in industrial assistance has gone into the four regions that we can define as the north of Great Britain, in terms of the motion. That is an act of massive generosity by any stretch of the imagination. With block grants, there has been a similar and significant incidence of positive discrimination.
I notice that there was a reference in the report, "The Great Divide", to the discrepancy in Arts Council grants. If one takes out of the equation support for national arts companies such as the Royal Shakespeare Company, the Royal Opera House or the English National Opera, the highest per capita spend on regional arts associations is in the northern region. Northern Arts received 58·4p per head of population, whereas the Southern Arts Association received 20–9p. When we discuss such an issue, if it is seen to be relevant to the report published by the council, surely we can get our facts right. I am afraid that the basis of the Tameside borough council report is spurious, but I am grateful to it for kicking off a debate on reasons for discrepancies and differentials in performance between the regions.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at three minutes past One o'clock.

Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Royal Assent

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts

Charities Act 1985.
2. Films Act 1985
3. Dangerous Vessels Act 1985
4. Prosecution of Offences Act 1985
5. Rent (Amendment) Act 1985
6. Glensanda Harbour Order Confirmation Act 1985

PRIVATE BUSINESS

YORKSHIRE WATER AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 6 June.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Economic Activity

Mr. Knox: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received regarding further signs of an increase in economic activity.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Nigel Lawson): The latest CBI quarterly survey of manufacturing industry recorded an upsurge in business optimism, the fastest ever rise in export orders and the expectation of continued and accelerating growth in output.

Mr. Knox: For some years now Treasury Ministers have been making very optimistic noises about an economic recovery, yet unemployment continues to rise. When does my right hon. Friend expect that his economic policies will be so successful that unemployment will start to fall?

Mr. Lawson: If my hon. Friend had listened carefully to the answer that I gave to his original question he would have heard that those expectations were not mine but those of the membership of the CBI, as recorded in the CBI's industrial trends survey. But my hon. Friend is quite right, in that we are all greatly concerned about the fact that unemployment is high and still rising. Equally, I am sure he will acknowledge that a remarkable recovery and upswing is now going on in the United Kingdom's economy, which has already led, over the past two years, to more new jobs being created in this country than in the rest of Europe put together. I do not know when that will lead to a reduction in unemployment, but obviously the sooner the better for both my hon. Friend and the Government.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer bear in mind that even if he succeeds in deluding himself about the figures, he is not deluding anyone else? Will he consider not only the selective figures that he chooses but the Government's own figures from the central statistical office, which show that the socalled economic recovery will falter next year even from its present level? What does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do about it? When will he learn the lessons, arid when will he change course?

Mr. Lawson: As is customary, the hon. Gentleman is talking complete rubbish. I can remember being told in 1982 that the recovery would peter out in 1983. Then, when it continued strongly in 1983, we were told that it would peter out in 1984. But when it continued in 1984, we were told that it would peter out in 1985. Recovery is continuing strongly this year, but of course the hon. Gentleman says that it will peter out in 1986. He should learn from experience and recognise that so far the Government's forecasts have been proved right.

Mr. Latham: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that, particularly in Leicestershire, significant shortages are emerging of skilled and semi-skilled workers in manufacturing industry, as has been reported in the local newspaper? Are the Government giving that some attention, in order to see what can be done to alleviate the situation?

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is quite right. Incidentally, I commend the Leicester Mercury on its "jobs going begging" feature to which my hon. Friend has alluded. We are increasing expenditure on training substantially at both ends of the training spectrum. With the assistance of industry, we hope to expand the youth training scheme to a two-year scheme with a genuine training content that leads ultimately to a recognised qualification. At the same time, we are switching resources within higher and further education in order to produce more of the highly skilled technologists that industry badly needs.

Mr. Hattersley: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told the House that he does not know when unemployment is likely to fall, but we all know that a forecast is made internally for the Treasury that must include such figures. Why does he not tell us the Government's estimate, even though we know that he dare not admit that there will be no significant fall in the foreseeable future?

Mr. Lawson: I do not admit any such thing. We do not know precisely what the unemployment trend will be. Indeed, this Government, previous Conservative Governments and the Government in which the right hon. Gentleman served, have never forecast unemployment figures.

Job Creation

Mr. Gerald Howarth: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the Confederation of British industry about the number of new jobs created since May 1979.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): None. But the CBI's post-Budget forecast projected a 1 million increase in jobs between March 1983 and the end of this year.

Mr. Howarth: Should not that excellent news be broadcast and trumpeted throughout the land? Will it not come as a severe embarrassment to the alliance, which said in its 1983 election manifesto that the biggest early increase in employment that was foreseeable under its inflationary programme involved substantially fewer than the 1 million extra jobs which we are on target to create under this Government's proven economic policies?

Mr. Hayhoe: My hon. Friend makes a telling point. Conservative performance on employment since the 1983 general election is better even than the promises which the alliance made at the election.

Mr. Dormand: Has the CBI made any representations about the derisory £10 million which the Government are making available to NCB (Enterprise) Limited to provide alternative employment in the coalfields? Is he aware that at Horden colliery in my constituency, which it is proposed to close, there is no alternative employment and that that area alone could use £10 million for the provision of alternative employment? What advice has the Minister to offer to the 1,200 miners and their families who are facing a very dull prospect?

Mr. Hayhoe: I am not aware of any representations from the CBI on the point raised by the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, it is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy.

Mr. John Townend: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a growing problem with the thousands of new jobs being created in the hotel and tourist industry, especially in the south-east of England, because increasingly the industry is having to employ foreign labour? What action do the Government intend to take?

Mr. Hayhoe: Difficulties flow from what is, to some extent, a social attitude by our fellow countrymen towards working in the hotel and catering industry. I was listening to persuasive comments by my right hon. Friend Lord Young on that very question on the radio this morning. I commend the advice that he gave.

Dr. McDonald: How can the Minister claim that the Chancellor's free market solution to the problem of unemployment is successful when there were more than 25 million people in work in June 1975, but by December 1984 there were only 24 million in work?

Mr. Hayhoe: I would have thought that the hon. Lady would wish to commend the fact that since the last general election and by the end of this year a million new jobs will have been created. If that promise had been made by Ministers during the general election campaign, Opposition Members would have laughed. The reality is that that is the forecast for the end of the year.

Foreign Exchange Markets

Mr. Wainwright: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had with his counterpart in the United States of America about concerted intervention in foreign exchange markets.

Mr. Lawson: These matters will no doubt be discussed at the ministreial meeting of the G10 in Tokyo, which I shall be attending.

Mr. Wainwright: There was a successful innovation of concerted intervention in the foreign exchange markets at the end of February. Will the Chancellor communicate some confidence to exporters and others by ensuring that plans for concerted intervention stand ready to be used as a weapon against undue turbulence in the foreign exchange markets?

Mr. Lawson: The role of concerted intervention is limited, but from time to time it can be useful. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that the concerted interventions in January and February were successful. Of course, that can be reactivated at any time that appears appropriate. The role of concerted intervention is relatively modest, although it can be and has been useful at times.

Mr. Higgins: Will my right hon. Friend take steps at the G10 meeting to secure contingency arrangements to deal with the possible collapse of the dollar exchange rate, which could have most serious effects on United States interest rates, the debt crisis in South America and elsewhere and, indeed, the stability of the international system?

Mr. Lawson: I listen carefully to my right hon. Friend, but I should have thought that a fall in the exchange rate of the dollar and of dollar interest rates would, on balance, be helpful to debtor countries in particular and to the world economy as a whole. As for contingency plans, every


country, including the United Kingdom, bears in mind what might happen and has views on how it might react in such circumstances.

Public Bodies (Bulk Buying)

Mr. Meadowcroft: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in respect of public procurement policy, what evidence has been made available to him about the influence on suppliers' prices of bulk buying by public bodies.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peter Rees): The matter was covered in the report on Government purchasing submitted to the Prime Minister last December.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Has the Chief Secretary considered the problem, especially for new and small businesses, of public bodies combining too much, thus being able to dictate prices in the market so much that it becomes a corporate state and small businesses are unable properly to compete in a fair market?

Mr. Rees: I do not think that there is any evidence that we are moving towards a corporate state under this Government. It is not for me to speculate about what might happen under other Administrations. It is the Government's policy to improve small firms' access to Government contracts.

Mr. Eggar: Should there not at the least be a duty on each Department of State to report to the House the percentage of public procurement that has been purchased from small firms?

Mr. Rees: I am aware of American precedents on this matter, but I should like to reflect on the additional administrative costs incurred by Departments. I am sure that the House and my hon. Friend are keen that administration costs should be kept as low as possible.

Unemployment Costs

Ms. Clare Short: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the increased cost to the Treasury in benefits paid and tax and national insurance revenue forgone for every 1 per cent. increase in unemployment.

Mr. Peter Rees: The extra cost of benefits paid from a 1 per cent. increase in the level of unemployment is about £65 million. It is not possible to estimate the revenue forgone.

Ms. Short: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware, or will he admit, that there has been a nine percentage points increase in unmployment since 1979, when his party took office, and that there has been a massive cost to the country as well as to the people involved of keeping on the dole people who want to work? As the Government now claim that we are living with eonomic recovery and prosperity, although there is no decline in unmployment, will they seriously try to spend some of the money on creating essential jobs in the public service rather than on keeping people suffering in unemployment?

Mr. Rees: The hon. Lady has fallen into some error. There is no question of Government policies keeping people in unemployment. She might be aware that the Government are already spending more than £2 billion a

year on job creation measures. The House and the hon. Lady will, I hope, be consoled, even if they will not accept the Confederation of British Industry forecast, by the fact that at least 600,000 jobs have been created since March 1983.

Mr. Bellingham: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, between June 1983 and June 1984, an extra 30,000 jobs were created in Norfolk? Does that not show that Norfolk firms are winning the battle to create new jobs and to bring down unmployment?

Mr. Rees: I am interested to hear my hon. Friend's statistic. I am sure that the Government's measures are paying off in Norfolk as they are in other parts of the country. I am glad to congratulate Norfolk's economy on its flexibility in response to our measures.

Mr. Freeson: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, contrary to what he said about not keeping people unemployed, if the Government decided to invest about £1 billion a year in various forms of constructive activity, about 30,000 jobs could be created by that expenditure?

Mr. Rees: The right hon. Gentleman's figures are possibly a little suspect, but I hope he will take comfort from the fact that private and public sector investment was running at a record level last year and that that level is likely to be improved on this year.

Revenue Raising

Mr. Canavan: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his Department is considering any changes in methods of raising revenue.

Mr. Hayhoe: My right hon. Friend's proposals for this year are in the Finance Bill.

Mr. Canavan: Will the Treasury firmly reject the halfbaked idea of some Tory Members to replace the rating system with a regressive flat rate poll or residence tax, which, whatever it might be called, would be a tax on democracy, especially if people had to pay several hundred pounds a year for the right to vote? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that would be an even bigger afront to democracy than using a £50 million rate rebate to bribe the Scottish Tory party conference in a vain attempt to try to stop Scottish Conservative Members from becoming an endangered species?

Mr. Hayhoe: While not for a moment accepting the points made by the hon. Gentleman in that supplementary question, I welcome his interest in the means of raising revenue. What I hear from him most of the time in the House are ways of spending taxpayers' and ratepayers' money.

Mr. Roger King: Does my hon. Friend agree that one way to raise taxes would be by the method enunciated by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) in his Tribune message, namely, to soak people earning over £20,000 a year because they are supposedly rich?

Mr. Hayhoe: Some of the proposals that have emanated from Opposition Members have been arrant nonsense.

Mr. Wainwright: Do the Minister's replies on this issue mean that the career of the Chancellor as a tax reformer is now effectively at an end? If not, what plans for tax reform are coming forward?

Mr. Hayhoe: If the hon. Gentleman reflects on what my right hon. Friend said in his Budget speech —certainly in respect of national insurance contributions and his proposals on personal taxation—he will see that his reputation as a tax reformer has been enhanced by his Budget proposals.

Mr. Bill Walker: As one who does not feel like an endangered species—[Interruption.] —and is unlikely to become one, may I ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind when considering taxation changes that the Labour party in Scotland has for decades bought votes by the way in which it has engineered the rates and the rating system?

Mr. Hayhoe: The Labour party's record in Scotland in this respect is appalling. I am sure that my hon. Friend and many of his colleagues draw attention to that fact when they are in their native land.

Taxable Income

Mr. Pike: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate what increase would be required in the top rate of income tax to yield the same income to the Treasury as would be lost if the first £1,000 of taxable income were to be taxed at 15 per cent. instead of 30 per cent.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Moore): To finance the £3·3 billion needed for such a lower rate tax band would require a confiscatory rate, of 100 per cent. for all taxable income over £20,000, on the theoretical assumption that there would be any such income to tax.

Mr. Pike: Despite that reply, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be more equitable to assist those paying the lower rate of taxation, to shift the burden on to those who have more ability to pay? Does he further agree that the present taxation system is inequitable, bearing in mind that the first act of the Conservatives on taking power in 1979 was to reduce the top rate of tax from 83 to 60 per cent.?

Mr. Moore: If, instead of making absurd suggestions, the hon. Gentleman examines what has already been done in the Budget, he will see that, as opposed to his peculiar proposal, which would benefit—if it were able to be put into practice—a married couple with earnings of £85 a week by £2·88, the Budget measures, on NIC and taxation alone, without his absurd conditions, have advantaged the same family by £3·43 a week.

Mr. Stern: Does my hon. Friend recall that the top rate of tax under the last Labour Government, at 98 per cent., was equalled in the world only by the Republic of Togo? Does he agree that, admirable though that country's social system may be, it is not necessarily appropriate for this country, particularly as the Labour party has threatened to reintroduce that top rate of taxation?

Mr. Moore: It would be inappropriate for me to comment on the Republic of Togo. However, it is appropriate for me to comment on the absurdity of the taxation nostrums of Opposition Members.

Mr. Tim Smith: Does not my hon. Friend's answer to this ill-informed and naive question show beyond doubt that the Labour party's principal concern is not redistribution but confiscation?

Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend is right. It is not only confiscation but a complete inability to understand what actually benefits those who are at the bottom of the scale.

Overseas Private Investment

Mr. Nellist: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current level of total overseas private investment compared with 1979.

Mr. Lawson: The total value of United Kingdom private investment overseas has risen from £43 billion at the end of 1979 to £158 billion at the end of last year.

Mr. Nellist: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that had that rise of over £115 billion been spent in Britain it could have provided 1,000 new general hospitals—[Interruption.] —1,000 new general hospitals, 7,000 new large comprehensive schools— —

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: What, 1,000 hospitals?

Mr. Nellist: And almost—[Interruption.] —

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has as much right to speak as anybody else.

Mr. Nellist: And almost 750,000 three-bedroomed houses. Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that working people in this country would far rather have seen alleviation in the health, education and housing sectors than the Government allowing that £115 billion to chase the super-exploited labour, the cheap labour, of South Africa, Brazil, Korea or Argentina?

Mr. Lawson: I hope that I have your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, to answer the hon. Gentleman's questions fairly fully. First, the bulk of that investment has not been in the cheap labour countries to which he referred, but in the cheap labour country of the United States. Secondly, it is not just the sum of annual flows across the exchanges, but it includes the appreciation in value of the investments that have been made overseas, which has been very substantial. Thirdly, it has in no way prevented investment in this country. In fact, total United Kingdom fixed investment last year was at the all-time record of £55 billion.

Dr. Mawhinney: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that every Government Department is proving maximally helpful to organisations and communities in this country that are seeking to bring private investment from overseas?

Mr. Lawson: A considerable amount is being done to attract foreign investment from overseas. Over the past few years it has been running at between £3 billion and £4½billion a year. However, this is a particularly important point. Our investment overseas will bring in increasing revenues and, in terms of foreign exchange, increasing invisible earnings over the years that lie ahead.

Mr. Terry Davis: Why does the Chancellor of the Exchequer take such a contemptuous attitude towards those who believe that the profits made in this country should be reinvested in this country? Has he forgotten that the Conservative party used to claim to be the party of patriotism?

Mr. Lawson: That sort of jibe is unworthy of the hon. Gentleman. The Conservative party is certainly the party of patriotism. It is also the party of the open trading system. That system applies to the capital as well as the current account.

Commonwealth Games, Edinburgh

Mr. Colvin: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many £2 coins are to be issued to commemorate the Commonwealth Games in Edinburgh in 1986.

Mr. Hayhoe: As many as demand requires of the standard version, and decisions about the collectors' versions have yet to be taken.

Mr. Colvin: Is my hon. Friend aware that the issue of commemorative British postage stamps makes a substantial profit? Will the Treasury emulate the Post Office and issue on a more regular basis commemorative coinage which might, if profitable, compensate the British public for having to carry around in fast-wearing-out pockets these objectionable lumps of metal instead of the popular and far more practical bank notes?

Mr. Hayhoe: This commemorative issue will be widely welcomed. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not ruled out the possibility of further commemorative issues. It is rather sad to muddle this matter up with the controversy about the £1 coin and the £1 note.

Mr. Ron Brown: Since the 1979 pound is now worth 55p in real terms, would it not be more realistic to issue a rubber £5 note so that the currency could stretch a little further?

Mr. Hayhoe: Certainly not. If the policies which the hon. Gentleman and his party espouse had been put into effect, the pound would have been worth a good deal less.

Coal Industry Dispute

Mr. Flannery: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total cost to the Government as a result of lost taxes during the miners' strike.

Mr. Moore: After taking account of increases in revenue from, for example, heavy fuel oil duty, the direct loss of tax and national insurance contributions was of the order of £150 million net.

Mr. Flannery: According to today's opinion polls, the Conservative party is suffering from a terminal bout of anorexia nervosa. I should like to ask the Government about their policies. They have just made certain confessions. The miners fought for a year against the closure of pits by the Government without any discussion with the men working in those pits. Having lost all that money, and about £7 billion on top of that, the Government are now closing pits at a terrible rate without a democratic discussion with the people working in those pits. Can the Financial Secretary justify his answer, having pushed the British people into a dilemma for 12 months because of the loss of that money?—[Interruption.] Mr. Speaker, I am asking the Economic Secretary an honourable question.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member's question had a long preamble.

Mr. Moore: The preamble and the substance of the question were rubbish and a total refutation of the efforts, not only of all the miners who worked throughout that strike, but of all the miners who have suffered from the type of brutality that we have seen because some Opposition Members supported naked Scargillism.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: Does my hon. Friend agree that a far more pertinent question would be about the cost to the taxpayer of an uneconomic coal industry with the miners not on strike?

Mr. Moore: Not only is my hon. Friend right, but a far more pertinent question would be about the loss to our nation and the coal industry resulting from that type of strike. Happiness for our country lies in the fact that the strike is over. We should seek to mend the problems that the industry faces and be pleased that that industry is back at work.

Privatisation

Mr. Bruce: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the net capital gain and revenue loss, respectively, to the Exchequer from the privatisation of publicly owned enterprises since 1979.

Mr. Lawson: Capital receipts from special sales of assets since 1979 amount to some £5 billion. The overall revenue effects cannot be calculated, but what is clear is that privatisation has invariably led to greater efficiency, better industrial performance and wider share ownership.

Mr. Bruce: Given the Prime Minister's continued lectures to the effect that the United Kingdom's economy can be compared to the corner shop in which she grew up, does the Chancellor agree that the owner of a corner shop would not regard selling off capital to boost the current year's turnover as a prudent move?

Mr. Lawson: The hon. Gentleman seems to have overlooked the fact that the concerns that have been privatised remain part of the United Kingdom economy, even when they cease to be owned by the state, and, indeed, become a much more successful part of the United Kingdom's economy, to the beneift of the whole country.

Mr. Yeo: Has my right hon. Friend noticed the recent press interview given by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) in which he advocated the renationalisation of British Telecom? Does my right hon. Friend agree that such a move would be the most appalling waste of taxpayers' money and would deprive hundreds of thousands of workers of their first experience of share ownership?

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. That is what the Labour party pledges it will do. All those who hold British Telecom shares should be made widely aware of that. Nevertheless, this will not be put to the test, because the Labour party will not be in government.

Mr. James Lamond: Does the Chancellor think that the privatisation programme has had any impact on the inflow of funds to building societies?

Mr. Lawson: I do not know.

Mr. Hirst: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the companies privatised since 1979 have, without exception,


increased their profitability, and that they are making and will continue to make a sizeable contribution to the exchequer?

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is right. All those companies, without exception, have improved their profitability—some of them to a substantial extent—as a direct consequence of privatisation. They have also improved their industrial relations, and the work forces have made it clear how much better they feel now that they are in the private sector. As a result of privatisation we have also doubled the number of people who directly own shares, and that is of the first importance.

Dr. McDonald: Is not the figure of £5 billion that the Chancellor gave earlier dwarfed by the sum of £12,000 million raised by the sale of council houses and other local authority assets since 1979, precious little of which has been reinvested in housing for the homeless and others in need? Is the Chancellor aware that the most recent figures for new orders for council housing for the first quarter of this year total a mere £174 million, 21 per cent. down on the first quarter of last year? When will the Government stop frittering away the nation's assets?

Mr. Lawson: When will the Labour party make its policies clear? It began by opposing the sale of council houses. I was then given to understand, from a speech made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), that the party was backing off that policy and coming to terms with the sale of council housing. Now the hon. Lady seems to oppose the sales. Will she please make her party's policy clear?

Service Employment

Mr. Norman Atkinson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the Confederation of British Industry about expanding the United Kingdom manufacturing base as a means of creating service employment.

Mr. Peter Rees: None, Sir.

Mr. Atkinson: Does the Minister recall his answers to questions Nos. 1 and 2, when he referred to the CBI's expectations about the creation of a million new jobs by the end of 1985? Is the Minister further aware that the leading personalities of the CBI have now broken with their past mutual admiration for the Chancellor and have become increasingly critical of him? They now support the view of the Centre Forward group that the Chancellor has totally let down manufacturing industry by his opinion that it is totally irrelevant. Is he aware that they believe that he has failed to deliver the incentives that he promised manufacturing last year, with the consequence that those million new jobs will not be delivered by the end of the year?

Mr. Rees: The CBI can speak for itself. It is obvious that the hon. Gentleman did not attend the CBI dinner earlier this week, where he might have heard a different story. If the House doubts the Government's commitment to the manufacturing sector, I repeat the words of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a Select Committee in another place:
the most important source of output and jobs and the more competitive it is, the better off we shall all be as a nation".
My right hon. Friend was referring to the manufacturing sector.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Nicholas Winterton.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am somewhat surprised by your hesitation, Mr. Speaker. Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept, and will he assure the House, that he and his Front Bench colleagues realise that manufacturing industry is the real source of the wealth needed to create a permanent long-term increase in employment in the service sector? Will he therefore continue to promote policies that will ensure the future success of British manufacturing industry? In the textile and clothing industries, a leading industrialist has said that, given the right climate—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has demonstrated why I was hesitant.

Mr. Rees: It is not for me to come between the Chair and my hon. Friend on such delicate matters.
We do not believe that any one sector of the economy is contributing exclusively to the prosperity and success of the nation, but we recognise the importance of the contribution made by the manufacturing sector. To reassure my hon. Friend and the House of the success of that sector under the present Government, I remind them that manufacturing exports rose from £40 billion in 1983 to £46 billion last year.

Mr. Blair: Is it not the case that our share of world manufactures since 1979 is down, as is our share of world trade and tradable services? Is it not about time that the Minister realised that the people want an industrial policy that addresses our problems and not an arrogant pretence that they do not exist?

Mr. Rees: I can tell the hon. Gentleman one thing that he has overlooked. We have cut, rather than piled on, expenses for manufacturing, particularly the cost of employment in the manufacturing sector.

Inflation

Mr. Dubs: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those advanced industrial countries which, compared with a year ago, have a rate of inflation which is (a) increasing faster than that in the United Kingdom and (b) increasing more slowly.

Mr. Hayhoe: Inflation in other major industrial countries has decreased compared with a year ago.

Mr. Dubs: Is the Minister not saying that we are the only major advanced industrial country which, on a year ago basis, is showing increasing inflation, and that all our competitors are doing better? Does this not show that, given that getting inflation down is a central plank of the Government's economic policy, on this as on other measures they have failed?

Mr. Hayhoe: No, it shows that there is no comfort for the Labour party, as all the other countries have rejected the policies that it propounds.

Mr. Forth: Has my hon. Friend had the opportunity of comparing our economic performance with that of, for example, Socialist France and Spain? What conclusions has he drawn from the remarkable failure of Socialist policies there over the past few years?

Mr. Hayhoe: My hon. Friend has underlined the point that I made a moment ago.

Government Receipts

Mr. Chapman: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of total Government receipts were met by taxes on income and taxes on spending, respectively, in 1984–85; and how these figures compare with 1978–79.

Mr. Moore: As a percentage of total general Government receipts, taxes on personal sector spending increased from about 27 per cent. in 1978–79 to around 28½ per cent. in 1984–85, while personal income taxes have declined from 29½ per cent. in 1978–79 to 24 per cent. in 1984–85.

Mr. Chapman: I recognise that that answer is broadly in line with the Government's intentions way back in 1979, but does my hon. Friend think that the proportions are about correct, or would he like the trend to continue?

Mr. Moore: Clearly, the Government believe that it is essential, if we are to encourage initiative and enterprise, to seek further reductions in direct income tax. That must be the aim if there is to be scope for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to reduce direct taxation.

Employment (Tax Relief)

Mr. John Mark Taylor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received advocating taxation reliefs for employers who recruit new and additional personnel on to their payrolls.

Mr. Peter Rees: We have received one letter about this. The costs of recruiting and employing staff are already fully allowable for tax.

Mr. Taylor: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take note of the fact that in our taxation system it has been historically an orthodoxy to give tax relief to people who invest in new plant? Why could we not give some serious thought to tax relief for those who invest in new labour?

Mr. Rees: If my hon. Friend will reflect on the reforms in the Budget last year he will see that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor redressed the balance between capital-intensive industries and labour-intensive industries.

Sterling M3

Mr. Latham: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what factors he attributes recent increases in sterling M3; and what effect he expects them to have on future levels of inflation.

Mr. Lawson: Accelerated borrowing to take advantage of 1984–85 level of investment allowances was clearly a major factor in the erratic increase in £M3 in April. MO remains well on track. I expect inflation to resume its downward path in the second half of the year.

Mr. Latham: In view of that reply, would the birds fall from the trees if we stopped publishing monthly figures straight away—at once?

Mr. Lawson: I am not sure whether any birds would fall from the trees, but I am sure that I would be widely attacked, not least by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) for obscurantism of the worst sort if we ceased to publish figures. Even if we did not publish them, we would continue to be guided by them, among other statistics.

Mr. Sedgemore: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with Mr. Coleby, of the Bank of England, who said to the Select Committee on the Treasury yesterday that our domestic monetary arrangements are out of control?

Mr. Lawson: I do not think that Mr. Coleby said that—

Mr. Sedgemore: Yes, he did.

Mr. Lawson: If he said that, I totally disagree with him.

Public Sector Borrowing Requirement

Dr. Mawhinney: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what factors he takes into account in determining the level of the public sector borrowing requirement.

Mr. Peter Rees: The principal factor is the need to ensure that the public sector borrowing requirement can be financed in a non-inflationary way without crowding out private sector borrowing.

Dr. Mawhinney: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the safe reduction of interest rates is now of maximum importance? If so, does he believe that such a reduction is dependent on having a lower public sector borrowing requirement?

Mr. Rees: Certainly we would welcome a decline in interest rates, and my hon. Friend will know that they are an indispensable adjunct in controlling inflation. I recognise the connection that he draws between interest rates and the PSBR.

Indirect Taxation

Mr. Craigen: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the shift in the percentage of revenues raised from indirect taxation since 1979.

Mr. Hayhoe: Indirect taxes accounted for about the same proportion of total general Government receipts in 1984–85 as in 1978–79. Within indirect taxes, taxes on expenditure accounted for about 1 per cent. more in 1984–85 than in 1978–79.

Mr. Craigen: Why are the Government so intent on steadily withdrawing rate support grant from the activities of local authorities, thereby increasing indirect taxation even more?

Mr. Hayhoe: We seek a proper balance between the resources provided by central Government and those provided by the local electorate. We seek a local taxation sytem that is more responsive to the local electorate.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mrs. McCurley: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 May.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mrs. McCurley: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to repeat the message that she gave to the


women's conference yesterday, for the benefit of those on the Opposition Benches and the country at large, and point out that the Government have consistently increased spending on health, social security, social services, transport and various other things? Will she nail the myths about cuts? Will she take the opportunity to repeat that message until the country gets it?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for underlining the points that I made yesterday. May I point out, in regard to the National Health Service, that the only cuts that we have made are cuts in waiting lists, and they are very welcome.

Mr. Kinnock: On Tuesday the Prime Minister gave a forecast for the inflation rate at the end of the year. Will she be as forthcoming today about the unemployment figures? At the end of the year, will they be up or will they be down?

The Prime Minister: No one has ever given a specific forecast on unemployment when answering from this Dispatch Box, either as a Labour or as a Tory Minister. No one really can.

Mr. Kinnock: How can the Prime Minister be so specific about inflation rates in six months' time and so vague and evasive about unemployment rates in six months' time? How could she be so bold yesterday with the Tory ladies conference and so coy today with the House of Commons and the public? Is it not the case that she knows very well that unemployment will continue to go up and that that is a disgrace and a strain on her Government? What will she do about getting the unemployment rate down?

The Prime Minister: The real answer to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question is that inflation is generally easier to predict over the short term than unemployment. Every Minister has recognised that. With regard to asking me to underline the message I gave yesterday, I am delighted to do that. Doctors and dentists are up nearly 10,000, nurses and midwives are up 57,000, home helps are up 3,000, health visitors are up 900, district nurses are up 1,700, patients treated are up 3·5 million each year, and teachers' pay on average is up 9 per cent. in real terms over what it was under Labour.

Mr. Kinnock: I am glad that the right hon. Lady said that. There are now more nurses unemployed, more qualified doctors unemployed, and more qualified teachers unemployed than ever before. When will she get unemployment down? What will the trend be at the end of the year?

The Prime Minister: There are also 600,000 more jobs than two years ago. The way to tackle the unemployment is to create more jobs.

Mr. Wheeler: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to read the report of the Home Affairs Select Committee on hard drugs, which was published today? Does she agree that one of the most serious problems facing the British people is the menace of hard drugs? Does she agree with the recommendations for new legislation to deal with the seizure of assets and to stop the traffickers in their tracks?

The Prime Minister: The Government will consider the report of the Select Committee carefully. As my hon. Friend knows, we have already made a statement of our

strategy for drugs, and I am happy to confirm that we intend to introduce legislation to seize and confiscate the proceeds of drug traffickers.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The Prime Minister does not believe the old public opinion polls, does she?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir—whatever they say.

Mr. Sayeed: Does my right hon. Friend accept that "restoring standards" appears to mean—to the National Union of Teachers—raising teachers' pay, while to the rest of us it means improving standards of education, discipline and apolitical commitment to students? Will she, therefore, take time today to confirm that the unions cannot hope to achieve what they want unless they are prepared to give the country what it needs?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has tackled education in the right way, that is, by trying to raise standards in schools. That has been most welcome among parents and most teachers. He is also tackling the pay problem in the right way by saying that we should know precisely what teachers' duties are and that, as in most other careers in the United Kingdom, teachers should be subject to an assessment of performance. That being so, we should like to be able to provide more money next year for teachers, provided that those things are satisfied.

Mr. Terry Fields: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Fields: In sending in the district auditor to try to sack local authority workers, especially young workers, in Liverpool, does the Prime Minister intend to create a reserve army of part-time scarecrows to benefit her rich farming friends? In attempting further to strip workers of their dignity and self-respect, is she not becoming immortalised, like Marie Antoinette, by a new slogan, "Let them eat bird seed", or some similar epithet?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the district auditor acts independently. I hope that Liverpool will follow the example of most other authorities and set a legal rate. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not encouraging it to act illegally.

Mr. Powley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is simple to achieve a temporary improvement in unemployment, but that we need a permanent improvement in employment without increasing inflation and interest rates, and without dragging the country to its knees, as we would do if we followed the Opposition's policies?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. He will be well aware that the economic policies which the Government are pursuing were affirmed by the seven industrial countries which met at the Bonn economic summit, including Socialist France.

Mr. Blair: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Blair: Has the Prime Minister read the latest regional trends? Is she aware that it discloses a growing gap between north and south in unemployment,


redundancies, lost job opportunities, homelessness, poverty and deprivation? How does that conform with her view of a classless society?

The Prime Minister: Last year the Government spent more than £600 million in regional preferential assistance, £260 million of which went to the north, the north-west, Yorkshire and Humberside. Although unemployment is relatively high in the north, average weekly manual earnings there are the third highest in Great Britain and about equal to the British average.

Mr. Rathbone: May I press my right hon. Friend further on the Government's plans for legislation on the seizure of assets of drug pushers? Can she put a date to her promise, which was welcomed by the entire House?

The Prime Minister: The legislation could not be introduced before the next parliamentary Session. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is working on its precise provisions.

Mr. Cartwright: Does the Prime Minister stand by her statement to the House last December that the cost of creating new jobs by capital investment in the infrastructure was between £35,000 and £50,000 each? Does she accept that that figure has been continually challenged by civil engineering contractors, who put the figure nearer to £10,000? In view of that wide discrepancy, will she produce the evidence to support her figures, or will she accept that they were a considerable exaggeration?

The Prime Minister: The cost varies according to the infrastructure or capital expenditure per job. It also varies according to whether it is provided by local government or by central Government. The hon. Gentleman will have seen the many questions and answers on this topic.

Mr. Favell: Has my right hon. Friend seen the result of the Gallup poll taken recently near Heathrow, which shows that 62percent.—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This takes time.

Mr. Favell: —of the residents there were in favour of terminal 5, and 24 per cent. were against? Does that not show that it is much more sensible to expand the airport in the south-east, which the airlines wish to use and to which people wish to fly, rather than Stansted, which is to be only a charter flight airport, and whose expansion would remove jobs from the north?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend made his point effectively. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will make a statement on his decision after we return from the recess.

Mr. James Lamond: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Lamond: Is the Prime Minister's determination to build a classless society reinforced when she sees that the sum of money which she and her Government believe can support 30 families in unemployment benefit for a year can be spent on a birthday party by a young man of 21?

The Prime Minister: That is a highly artificial question. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will also address his mind to some of the costs of running the House.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Having regard to the generous contribution of the British people to relief in Ethiopia, will my right hon. Friend examine reports that the Ethiopian dictatorship is levying heavy customs duty on British aid going into that country, and will the appropriate Minister make a statement at the earliest opportunity?

The Prime Minister: I shall pursue my hon. Friend's point. I am sure he agrees that it is right to continue to give aid to Ethiopia, although it is important that we ensure that it gets to those for whom it is intended.

GCHQ, Cheltenham

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Prime Minister what representations she has received from Civil Service trade unions about the directive she issued on 22 December 1983 about trade union membership in Government communications headquarters; and if she will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: Following representations from the Council of Civil Service Unions, I met its representatives and those of the Trades Union Congress on 1 and 23 February 1984.
The Council of Civil Service Unions has recently made representations about the position of 12 members of GCHQ who originally accepted the revised conditions of service and the management's offer announced on 25 January 1984 and accordingly resigned from union membership, but subsequently rejoined unions after the High Court judgment in July 1984. Those representations are still being considered, but it has been made clear to the unions that there will be no change in the Government's general policy on this matter.

Mr. Dalyell: So has not the time come for an amnesty?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman was listening to my first answer, I said that there will be—[Interruption.] I am so delighted with the reference from the hon. Gentleman. There will be no change in the Government's policy.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the problems at Cheltenham have their roots in the fact that the trade union leaders in the Civil Service reneged on an unwritten agreement that Cheltenham would never be involved in industrial activity?

The Prime Minister: The action was taken, as my hon. Friend knows, because of the action taken by GCHQ when it went on strike and put very sensitive services at risk.

Mr. James Lamond: On a point of order Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Does it arise from questions?

Mr. Lamond: I am wondering whether the Prime Minister misunderstood my question—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That cannot be a point of order for me, because I do not know. The hon. Gentleman might ask that question, if he has an opportunity, when we return from the Whitsun recess.

Mr. Lamond: I am trying to clear up a misunderstanding.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Lamond: rose —

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is a very experienced Chairman. He knows that it is not our practice


to extend Question Time. There are very many right hon. and hon. Members who wish to speak in the subsequent debate.

Mr. Sheerman: rose —

Mr. Speaker: Is this a new point of order?

Mr. Sheerman: It is a fresh point of order, Mr. Speaker, but it follows up the point of order of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond). Further to the remarks of the Prime Minister in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham Central and Royton, gross discourtesy—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot be responsible for the questions that are asked or for any answers that are given, whether from the Front Benches or from the Back Benches.

Mr. Heller: On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Is it concerned with questions?

Mr. Heffer: It concerns a question which is important, Mr. Speaker, because—

Mr. Speaker: Order, I shall take the hon. Gentleman's point of order later.

Business of the House

Mr. Neil Kinnock: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for the first week after the Adjournment?

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for the first week after the Adjournment will be as follows:
MONDAY 3 JUNE — Second Reading of the Rating (Revaluation Rebates) (Scotland) Bill.
Remaining stages of the Family Law (Scotland) Bill [Lords] 
TUESDAY 4 JUNE—Opposition Day (12th Allotted Day). Until about Seven o'clock a debate entitled "The Government's Neglect of Rural Communities in Wales", followed by a debate entitled "The Government's Attack on Higher Education". Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
Remaining stages of the Coal Industry Bill.
WEDNESDAY 5 JUNE—Remaining stages of the Rating (Revaluation Rebates) (Scotland) Bill.
Motion on the Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order.
THURSDAY 6 JUNE—Opposition Day (13th Allotted Day). Until about Seven o'clock a debate on the problems of the elderly, followed by a debate on wages councils. Both debates will arise on motions in the name of the leader of the Liberal party.
FRIDAY 7 JUNE—Private Members' motions.

Mr. Kinnock: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I understand that there will be a statement after the recess on the so-called Fowler review. The House will want as soon as possible a full-scale debate on the statement and the papers connected with it so that the Government will have an early opportunity to explain to the country why it appears to be necessary that the poorest should have to pay even more for the failure of Government policies.
I understand that there is to be a further statement on the Government's airports policy, or lack of it, after the recess. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that his hapless right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport makes a statement that recognises the need to develop both the airports of south-east England and those that are in need of effective investment elsewhere?
Will the Leader of the House also tell us when we are to debate the second report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs on "Famine in Africa", which critically and correctly observes that the generosity of the British people has not been matched by that of the British Government in the matter of famine aid to Ethiopia?
We all heard from the Prime Minister on Tuesday that she looked forward to a debate on televising the proceedings of the House. Why do we have to wait until the autumn for that debate? Why cannot we have the debate before the summer recess so that we can get on with televising the proceedings in the autumn?

Mr. Biffen: On the question of televising debates, a report is to be made on the experiment in another place. It is, of course, perfectly appropriate to explore these matters through the usual channels, and I note what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Select Committee report "Famine in Africa" has only just been made and the Government have not yet had the opportunity to comment on it. Perhaps we could consider that, too, through the usual channels.
As for the promised statement on airports policy. my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will be making a prudent, wise, compelling and balanced judgment which I hope will enlist the support even of the right hon. Gentleman.
I recognise the concern that there should be a full-scale debate on the social security review. Perhaps we could pursue that, too, through the usual channels.

Sir Philip Goodhart (Beckenham): Does my right hon. Friend recognise that 100 people will almost certainly be killed on our roads next week as it includes the Whitsun bank holiday? Will he try to find time before the summer recess for a debate on the important report on road safety produced by the Select Committee on Transport?

Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to the important point raised by my hon. Friend.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Is Britain's defence relationship with the United States of America sufficiently important for the Government to arrange a debate in Government time on President Reagan's star wars initiative, or do the Government fear that the Foreign Secretary may be too keen to take part and to express the misgivings that so many of us share?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman will be the first to appreciate that we are now coming to that part of the year in which we have the opportunity for wide-ranging defence debates arising from the Estimates.

Sir Bernard Braine: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the farcical behaviour at the Ottawa conference of experts on the Helsinki accord, at which this country is represented by a distinguished delegation? Does he agree that events there illustrate the inability of civilised nations to do anything about the appalling state of human rights in the world? Will there be a statement during the week after the Whitsun recess on what is happening in Ottawa? May we have some indication that this matter, which should touch the conscience of every hon. Member, will be debated before we rise for the summer recess?

Mr. Biffen: My right hon. Friend has a long-standing interest and an established reputation in human rights matters. I will draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary to the points that my right hon. Friend has made.

Mr. Reg Freeson: Will the Leader of the House use his good offices to get the Prime Minister to make a statement to the House when we return after the recess as to why the intelligence services, for which she is responsible, blocked the release of information on Klaus Barbie, which was sought from the United States Government by special prosecutors seeking to track down ex-Nazis and bring them to trial?

Mr. Biffen: I cannot comment on the substance of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, but I shall most certainly pass them on to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: My right hon. Friend will be aware that two senior Committees of the House have produced two major reports, one of which has been in his hands for some months and the other for some days. In a sense, they enjoin us to practise what we are constantly preaching to the country—to improve our efficiency and performance. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that both of those subjects will be considered in the comparatively near future and that the legislative business committee, in particular, which is recommended in the latest report of the Select Committee on Procedure, will have some chance of being established before next Session?

Mr. Biffen: I have already implied that there should be a debate on the recommendations of the Select Committee on Procedure.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: When the Leader of the House read my early-day motion 729 this morning, did he remember that some months ago he gave me a very sympathetic and understanding answer about the number of hon. Members in all parties who have an interest in Westminster hospital, and who would deplore any closure?
[That this House deplores the growing practice of Ministers announcing important decisions by means of a written Answer, especially when the subject matter is of concern to many honourable Members who are thus denied the opportunity of expressing their views in the House; and in particular resents that the transfer of a complete department at Westminster Hospital, cardiac surgery, was announced in this fashion, in view of the close association of honourable Members of both Houses with this hospital.] 
Will the right hon. Gentleman raise with the Cabinet the issue of giving written answers to questions in which hon. Members in all parts of the House are interested? If there is a written answer, hon. Members are then denied the opportunity to question the Minister about his decision.

Mr. Biffen: I note what the hon. Gentleman has said. I realise that the news will have caused him regret and that he would have preferred an oral statement to a written answer. To some extent, responsibility for that rests with me rather than with departmental Ministers.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: As we are to have quite a short recess, may I ask my right hon. Friend to forget about Government White Papers, White Papers with green edges, Green Papers and blue papers and to read instead the book just produced by his colleague, who is damp but never dull, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley)? When he has read it, will he recommend to the Prime Minister that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot should be put in charge of Government propaganda so that we can get it right and at least get some fun into it?

Mr. Kinnock: Yes.

Mr. Biffen: I cannot give quite such a simple answer as that recommended to me by the Leader of the Opposition, as I must tell my hon. Friend that I have already read the book. That shows the priority that I give to not only the wit but the wisdom of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley).

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement to the House fairly soon

about the very damaging development to the life and work of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, which has been required to move out of its rooms by House of Lords pressure, with the inevitable result that the IPU room in our part of the building will eventually be forced into use as a Committee room, and the IPU' s work will be totally removed from the Houses of Parliament?

Mr. Biffen: Senior members of the IPU have already been to see me about the matter, and I am available to continue discussions with them.

Mr. Michael Latham: Will my right hon. Friend have another go at persuading my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health to make a statement to the House on when we shall get in place the appeal system on the limited list of drugs? The matter is becoming very urgent and we need some action now.

Mr. Biffen: I understand my hon. Friend's point and I shall see what can be done.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: Is the Leader of the House aware that the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden), who was fortunate enough to be drawn first in the private Members' ballot yesterday, intends to table a motion for debate on 7 June whose effect would be to give unlimited time to further the progress of a private Member's Bill, in the name of the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell)? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that many of us feel that that would be a gross abuse of the procedures of the House? Moreover, it would cause great embarrassment to the Government as they have promised a comprehensive Bill on these very matters. As the Government have the power to prevent that abuse, will they use it?

Mr. Biffen: I have yet to see the motion, as it is not on the Order Paper; therefore, I must measure my words accordingly. Should the motion be judged to be in order, it will be debated. I think that it will give rise to a lively debate. I shall certainly try to catch the eye of Mr. Speaker to make my contribution.

Mr. Peter Viggers: I listened carefully to my right hon. Friend's statement but did not hear any reference to a debate on the Government's possible ban on tin-based marine anti-fouling paint. May we therefore assume that the Government are not now proceeding with that unnecessary ban, which would cause serious damage to the paint industry as well as annoying and, indeed, infuriating a large number of yachtsmen?

Mr. Biffen: I thought that my comprehensive and definitive statement on that matter during the recess motion debate some months ago would go down in parliamentary annals. I am sorry that the matter still appears to be dribbling along. I shall look into it.

Ms. Jo Richardson: In view of the widespread concern about the psychiatric unit at Holloway prison, will the Leader of the House try to find time for an early debate on the future treatment of disturbed prisoners in Holloway?

Mr. Biffen: I recognise at once the importance of the point made by the hon. Lady. I shall ensure that it is brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Mr. Tim Smith: May we have a short debate on opinion polls? Has my right hon. Friend noticed


that, whenever a commercial organisation such as British Airways commissions a poll, it tends to come out in its favour? Would not the Government be much better advised on matters such as the views of residents around Heathrow to listen to the opinions of local Members of Parliament?

Mr. Biffen: I shall not be drawn into these highly delicate areas, but it will be a sad day when this House takes flight before opinion polls.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 702?
[That this House condemns the publication by present and past committees of the Warwick University Conservative and Unionist Association of a nauseating songbook, openly distributed at the Federation of Conservative Students' Conference at Loughborough University, which contains extremely offensive material including calls, in song, for the murder of Greenham peace women; notes that had such a publication been associated with groups of socialist or trades unionists, say the Youth Trade union Rights Campaign, then the outcry from the Press, media and Tory Party would have been deafening; and calls on the Prime Minister, and the leadership of the Tory Party for an explanation of, and condemnation of, this publication which bears an official conservative party logo.] 
It refers to a particularly disgusting and nauseating songbook written by the Federation of Conservative Students' at Warwick university.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that two days ago I received a letter from the Prime Minister saying that she deplored the contents of the songbook? As it calls for the murder of Greenham Common women and has on the front an official Conservative party logo, what impression does the right hon. Gentleman think is given of the modern Conservative party?

Mr. Biffen: I do not think that it is worth five minutes of Government time to debate.

Mr. Peter Lilley: In view of the frank admission on the "Right to reply" programme by the controller of programmes for Channel 4 that a programme entitled "Beyond our Ken" was 60 minutes of undiluted political propaganda in favour of retaining the GLC, that it was produced by an organisation partly funded by the GLC, and that it was part of a series that contained no balancing item and, indeed, no programme ever favourable to a Conservative viewpoint, will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate at an early date to discuss the enforcement of the Channel 4 charter that requires balance in the treatment of current affairs?

Mr. Biffen: I would mislead my hon. Friend if I were to suggest that there was a prospect of Government time for such a debate in the near or medium-term future. I suggest that he uses his opportunities to raise that matter on the Floor of the House on an Adjournment debate.

Mr. David Winnick: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider providing time for a debate on the majority and minority reports of the Select Committee on Home Affairs about the special branch? Is he aware that, despite the views of the majority of members on that Committee, there continues to be a great deal of concern about the way in which the civil rights and liberties of a

numbers of people in this country are being infringed simply because they disagree with the Government on such issues as defence?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that it is an important report, and its importance is in no sense diminished by virtue of the fact that there was clear and sharp division within the Committee about it. However, time becomes increasingly precious at this stage of the parliamentary year, and I can offer no early prospect of Government time for such a debate.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My right hon. Friend will be aware that in a parliamentary reply this afternoon the Prime Minister mentioned the development of Stansted and intimated that a statement would be made. Will it be made immediately after the recess? If so, will a further debate on that crucial matter be allowed in the House?
Bearing in mind what is alleged to be the Prime Minister's position on the live broadcasting by television of the proceedings of the House, will my right hon. Friend assure us that there will be a genuine free vote on that matter when it is debated and that there will be no official Government Whip to ensure that they get their way?

Mr. Biffen: I think that my hon. Friend has a bad conscience about his voting record and Government Whips, otherwise he would not be so sensitive about these matters—

Mr. Speaker: I shall call the hon. Members who have been standing in their places, but I remind the House that we have an important debate ahead of us.

Mr. Winterton: My right hon. Friend has not finished yet.

Mr. Biffen: I was just warming up.
There will be at statement on airports policy reasonably soon after we return from the Whitsun break. I agree that it would be desirable for the House to have a chance to debate the matter thereafter.

Mr. Max Madden: The Leader of the House might recollect that, at business questions last week, I expressed appreciation on behalf of my constituents for the Government's contribution to the Bradford disaster appeal. I also asked for an early Government statement about what contribution the Government intend to make to rebuild Valley Parade. When will the Government make a statement on this matter and on the larger issue of what contribution they will make to ensure that third and fourth division football grounds are completely safe?

Mr. Biffen: I cannot answer the question as put, but I shall make inquiries.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Did my right hon. Friend see in the publication that my hon. Friend for Stamford and Spalding (Sir K. Lewis) referred to that the author wrote:
Politics is a performing art and it is important to speak well …Humming, Hawing, and Hesitation are the three Graces of contemporary Parliamentary oratory.
Does my right hon. Friend agree? Should something be done?

Mr. Biffen: There is one precept by which I operate in this place: speech might be silver, but silence is golden.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Leader of the House share the anxiety of 3,500 of my constituents in the village of Glenboig who have been made aware that the Ministry of Defence intends to dump a massive tonnage of asbestos arising from the Trident programme at Faslane? Does he agree that people are entitled to comment on the quality of their environment and to be worried about health and safety? Will he arrange for an urgent debate on the subject?

Mr. Biffen: I can well understand public anxiety in the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman has described, and I shall ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence knows of his anxieties.

Mr. George Foulkes: When does the Leader of the House expect the Foreign Secretary to make a statement about the Ponting-type suspension without pay of an official at the Overseas Development Administration for leaking documents which reveal the Government's duplicity about aid to Nicaragua?

Mr. Biffen: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will allow me not to share the rhetoric which preceded the latter part of his question. I shall refer the matter to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and be in touch with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Under this Government we seem to spend a lot of time talking about rates in Scotland, and I see that the Secretary of State for Scotland intends to return to this subject for two days after the recess. Is the Leader of the House aware that, if my postbag is anything to go by, the Secretary of State has still not got it right? Will the Leader of the House draw his right hon. Friend to one side and tell him to get his act together or get out?

Mr. Biffen: No. I think that after the two days of debate the lucid arguments of my right hon. Friend will have convinced even the lairds.

Mr. Roland Boyes: Has the Leader of the House had an opportunity fully to study the implications of the social security changes in payments to homeless young people, a measure that forces tens of

thousands of youngsters to move from one part of Britain to another each month? How does he reconcile that unacceptable and punitive measure with the Conservative concept of a classless society and with his decision on three previous occasions to refer me to an Adjournment debate? Does he not think that the problems of up to 200,000 homeless people are worthy of debate in the Chamber?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman raises again a development policy which, I think, is of fairly recent origin. As we are promised a full-scale debate on the social security review, it is likely that he will be able to make a speech then.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: As the privatisation of publicly owned assets and the accompanying legislation are debated on the Floor of the House in Government time, why cannot we have time to debate the nationalisation of private assets? Will the right hon. Gentleman provide time for a debate on the Johnson Matthey nationalisation?

Mr. Biffen: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that he will report to the House on the conclusion of the investigation that is now taking place, and we will proceed from there.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Will the Leader of the House recognise the concern that is felt in the north of England and in north Wales about the plans by Shell to cut refining capacity both at Stanlow, which threatens 1,000 jobs on the already hard-pressed unemployment black spot on Merseyside, and at Carrington in south Manchester? Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that Shell's decision has been taken precisely because the Government do not have an effective energy policy? May we have a debate on refining capacity and energy policy?

Mr. Biffen: I have said that Government time is very much at a premium. I can offer no hope of a debate in Government time devoted to the topic raised by the hon. Gentleman. However, on the Monday when we return after the short recess, energy questions are top, and doubtless he can make some points then.

Back-Bench Members (Rights)

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for delaying the House, and I would not do so but for the exchange which took place earlier when several of my hon. Friends attempted to raise points of order.
The Prime Minister is reported in the Daily Telegraph as having had conversations with you, Mr. Speaker, asking for your protection from Back Benchers. As the right hon. Lady today seemed to indicate that the cost of the House of Commons was far too high so that, therefore, the rights of Back Benchers might be affected in some way, may we have an assurance from you that you will have conversations again with the right hon. Lady —indeed, that you will ask her to see you—and inform her that the House of Commons is an elected body, that Back Benchers also have rights and that if she cannot stand the heat in the kitchen she should get out?

Mr. Speaker: I saw that report. It was entirely wrong. I have never had conversations with the Prime Minister about that matter and I cannot imagine her ever seeking my protection. I am here to protect Back Benchers, and I hope that I do that adequately.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Was it not a sound principle when the House decided some time ago that its affairs and Vote should be taken away from the responsibility of the Government and put into the hands of the House itself?

Mr. Speaker: I do not understand what the hon. Member is getting at. I cannot take responsibility—nor can any of us—for reports that appear in newspapers.

BILL PRESENTED

RATING (REVALUATION REBATES) (SCOTLAND)

Mr. Secretary Younger, supported by Mr. Michael Ancram and Mr. John Moore, presented a Bill to provide, as respects Scotland, for rebates in respect of rates on certain lands and heritages And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 149.]

Immigration Control Procedures (Report)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Major.]

Mr. Speaker: A large number of right hon. and hon. Members wish to take part in the debate. I have no means of controlling the length of speeches, but I ask hon. Members to bear in mind that their colleagues are anxious to speak. I call for short contributions please.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): The origins of the CRE report lie in the case of a woman who had sought entry as a fiancée and was subjected to a medical examination to establish whether she had borne a child. It became known as the "virginity test" case and it took place under the last Labour Government.
Immediately after that incident, instructions were issued making it clear that such examinations had to cease, and they did. It is, therefore, ironical that the grievance that led to demands for an inquiry into the operation of the immigration control had been removed before the inquiry even commenced.
We did not think that an inquiry into immigration control came within the CRE's terms of reference, but once the inquiry was in train, the Home Office co-operated in every way. I am sure that the House would wish me to thank those in the CRE who undertook the difficult task of examining this very important subject; they can certainly not be faulted for the effort that they have put into it.
But I must be frank about the report itself. We find some of its central conclusions very odd—some might say perverse. It seems to reject the proposition that people from poor countries, driven by a desire to better themselves, are more likely to attempt to enter the United Kingdom fraudulently than those from relatively prosperous ones. Yet that is a statement of the obvious. There is no surprise in the fact that far more forged passports turn up from countries such as Nigeria and Bangladesh than the United States. In 1984 there were 442 from Nigeria and 129 from Bangladesh—yet only five from the United States. There is nothing astonishing in the fact that a higher percentage of people from those countries are refused entry. No one need wonder at the fact that a higher proportion of people from Ghana, Nigeria and Iran, having entered the country illegally or, having overstayed, finish up being deported or removed. It would be astonishing if that were not the case. The interesting thing is how few people overall are refused entry. Ninety nine point nine per cent. of all passengers are admitted at our ports of entry—99·1 per cent. of passengers from the new Commonwealth and Pakistan.
Much of the criticism in the report seems to proceed from this fallacy—that there must be something wrong with the control because more black people are stopped than white. But there is one thing on which we can all agree. Entry clearance officers and immigration officers are charged by Parliament to carry out a difficult and responsible task, and the way they carry it out can have a dramatic effect on the lives of individuals. They have on the one hand to see that people get their just entitlements. They have on the other to be alert to check abuse.


Therefore we want entry clearance officers and immigration officers of the highest quality—courteous, efficient, astute and humane. We must work the whole time to enhance the professionalism of the service and improve its ethos. The report goes out of its way to say that its criticisms are of the system rather than of individuals. But the CRE team was rightly worried about some of the unprofessional comments found in the files it looked at: and if that is a sign of poor training, we have got to get things right.
I can assure the House that there had been a lot of developments in training before the report was even published. In last July's immigration and nationality department report, we committed ourselves to introduce racial awareness training, and there has already been a seminar for senior staff and a course for training staff—trainers—but we are anxious, rightly, to see that racial awareness should not be a separate part of a training course, but brought into every aspect of it. Not only will the development of training programmes and the review of guidance material take into account the comments in the report, but I can see considerable advantages in a continuing dialogue with the CRE, the comments of which on training programmes we shall be only too happy to receive.
I mentioned guidance material and the report calls for a review of the guidance and instructions. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has already said that internal guidance is regularly adjusted, but a fundamental review of the instructions is under way and the possibility of publication is being studied.
A great deal of the report is concerned with entry clearance applications in the subcontinent, and I think many hon. Members have actually seen entry clearance officers conducting interviews, and will agree that they carry out their work with patience and humanity. The report says there should be a major change of emphasis in the operation of the procedures so that the risk of genuine applicants being refused is reduced to the minimum. But it is not the job of the entry clearance officers just to clear the queues. It is their job to apply the law, and the law rightly expects a person claiming to come here to establish his or her entitlement. It would be absurd if one were to re-write the rules to state that anyone who made an application was presumed to have an entitlement even if he could not show it. It would be doubly absurd if we were to do that in the context of the history of applications in the subcontinent, where there has been, regrettably, much deceit and attempts to evade the control. Every hon. Member knows that.
As to waiting times in the subcontinent, the times normally quoted are those relating to the non-priority queues: and it must be borne in mind that newly married wives, even in Dhaka, are admitted in under a month. The non-priority queue in Dhaka is overlong because about half of those in it are people whose claims have already been examined and found wanting not only by ECOs but in a high proportion of cases, by the appellate authorities, and they are now applying for a second or third time. In the vast majority of these cases, they are admitting previous deception when they make their second or third applications.
One other point is often overlooked, and not mentioned in the report. Wives in the non-priority queue cannot by

definition be newly married wives, or they would be in the priority queue: and the majority of those in the non-priority queue have waited for more than two years, and no fewer than 30 per cent. for more than nine years before applying to come here. That means that 60 per cent. have been separated for longer than the waiting time in the longest queue before applying for entry clearance. It seems a bit much in those circumstances to accuse the Government of being responsible for dividing the families.
Generally speaking the waiting times are shorter than under Labour. The place where there is considerable difficulty is Dhaka, where the number of applications has actually increased in the past year. Because of that we have decided that there should be five additional entry clearance officer postings of six months each in the next 12 months to cover absences such as staff leave and sickness. We are also taking steps to ensure that first-time applicants are given rather more priority than those applying for the second or third time, with the result that the waiting time for first-time applicants is already coming down.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: Has the report given rise to the new look at administration? Has the Department been stimulated by that report, despite the general tone of the Minister in referring to it earlier?

Mr. Waddington: I remind the hon. Gentleman that queue lengths have been coming down, and up to last year even the queue length in Dhaka compared favourably with the queue length under Labour. It was simply because over the past year the queue length in Dhaka began to increase that we began to study various ways in which we could help the situation.
It would be foolish of any of us to ignore advice or opinions expressed by anybody. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman is right if he is suggesting that we have paid full attention to what has been said by the CRE team, but I assure him that we were thinking about this matter before that, because we keep our eyes on the queues the whole time, and want to see that our resources are used to the best possible effect.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give a little detail on two places that affect my constituency—Islamabad and Gujarat? I am sure that he has statistics on those places.

Mr. Waddington: The position in Islamabad is fairly favourable. In 1979, when the Conservative party came into office, the waiting time was 19½ months; it is now down to 10¾ months. I think that we are entitled to take some pride in that. The position in Bombay has also improved. People from Gujarat have their applications dealt with in Bombay. In 1979 the waiting time in Bombay was 12½ months; we have now got it down to six months.
On applications by husbands and fiancés, the report says that it is fundamentally unfair that applicants for entry in that capacity should have to show that the marriage was not contracted solely or mainly for immigration purposes. I know that this is a controversial matter. I have discussed it with hon. Members on both sides of the House, but I do not believe that it can be wrong to expect someone who is claiming a valuable right to prove his entitlement. Why on earth should not a person claiming an entitlement be required to prove it? Why should a person be able to come here using marriage as a device? This is no attack on the


practice of the arranged marriage. It is those who use that practice for immigration purposes who undermine and discredit the practice.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the real bone of contention is the fact that in that matter, as in many others, such as immigration procedures at Heathrow and elsewhere, the fundamental principle of British law is reversed? Everyone is suspected of being guilty until proved innocent, rather than everyone being innocent until proved guilty. That is a reversal of natural justice. Our people strongly believe that that should not be so.

Mr. Waddington: It is misleading to talk about guilt or innocence. We are talking about a person who comes along and says, "I want to live in Britain, which is not my country." Surely he should be required to prove his entitlement to come to Britain, which is not his country. I can see nothing wrong in that. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) is wrong in saying that the fact that the burden is on the husband or fiancé marks a departure from the rules. If the hon. Gentleman reads the rules, he will find that the burden is on the person who comes here claiming to be a visitor to prove that he or she is a bona fide visitor and intends going back at the end of his stay. If the hon. Gentleman reads the rules, he will find that the burden on anyone who claims a right under the rules is to prove his or her entitlement. It is not beyond reasonable doubt. It is not a heavy burden, but it rests on him or her.

Ms. Clare Short: However the Minister chooses to use his powers I do not think that he would wish to mislead the House. On the question of a person's primary purpose in coming here, this burden differs from all other burdens. In every other case, an entitlement must be proved. In the case of marriage, the man must prove that it is not his primary purpose to come to the United Kingdom. That is a much more significant burden of proof. I am sure that the Minister would admit that and would not wish to mislead anyone about the facts.

Mr. Waddington: I do not follow the hon. Lady. The person concerned must prove his entitlement. Parliament has decided, rightly or wrongly, that a husband or fiancé does not have that entitlement if his primary purpose is immigration. Therefore, we do no more in the case of husbands and fiancés than we do in the case of any other applicants.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) is right to this extent—the 1983 rules constituted a considerable relaxation compared with the 1980 rules? There was a great deal of discussion about the 1983 rules. Eventually, as a compromise, there was a slight tightening up by inserting this method of assessing the burden of proof. Is it not the case that, in English law, where a person is particularly in command of the facts, it is usual for him to have the duty of proving them?

Mr. Waddington: My hon. Friend is correct. The burden of proof was changed in the 1983 rules. The change was rightly made and brought into line the burden of proof imposed on husbands and fiancés that already rested on others claiming an entitlement to come here. People talk as though the 1983 rules marked a draconian tightening up

in the rules concerning husbands and fiancés. In fact, it was a great relaxation of the rules. Before the introduction of the 1983 rules, the only people who could sponsor husbands or fiancés were girls who were either born here or had one parent born here. The introduction of the 1983 rules resulted not in a reduction but in an increase in the number of people able to come here as a husband or fiancé. The failure rate for entry of husbands and fiancés decreased from 62 per cent. in 1982 to 48 per cent. in 1983.

Mr. Ron Leighton: The Minister knows that this is an important and contentious point. The person concerned really has to prove a negative, that something is not his purpose. Exactly what does the person have to prove? What does he have to show? How does he do this?

Mr. Waddington: The person gives the most detailed advice to entry clearance officers on the relevant matters. It is easy to make a judgment in these cases. If it were as difficult as the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) says, everyone would fail the test. The truth is that 40 per cent. failed the test in the Indian subcontinent during the first three quarters of 1984.

Mr. Leighton: I did not say that it was "difficult". I merely asked what was involved. What does one have to do? How does one do it?

Mr. Waddington: I think that I can help the hon. Gentleman again. I should have thought that one car make a judgment on these matters fairly easily by asking the young man how he came to meet his fiancé and why he proposed to live with her in her country rather than his. Those are the types of question which should lead any ordinary, reasonable person to make a judgment as to a person's motive. Every day of the week the courts of the land make judgments on people's intentions and motives. I cannot see why that is such an impossible task when it is imposed on an entry clearance officer.

Mr. Budgen: On page 64 the report attacks the six criteria for questioning, saying that they are "unfair" I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend agrees that the six areas of questioning are likely to help the applicant to explain the facts that are within his control. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will not move away, because of any criticism, from those six areas of questioning.

Mr. Waddington: I should not like to be thought discourteous to the CRE team. I shall look at all the suggestions. I have already given my provisional view, which is that it is perfectly proper to ask a young man why he proposes to live with his wife-to-be in her country rather than his.
The last thing I want is for the first impressions of this country for people arriving at Heathrow to be unhappy ones because of the way they are treated at immigration control. All complaints against immigration officers are followed up with care. Again, I think that it is a question of being ever alert to improve training.
However, living on an island, we are able to rely to a very large extent on control at the ports, and I think that people would far rather run the risk of having to undergo careful questioning there than see us move over to a system that relied on pervasive after-entry controls with identity cards and the rest. It is necessary to put the matter into perspective by pointing out that it takes only about a


minute to clear through immigration each of the 7 million passengers a year who are neither British nor from the EEC. Some hon. Members have seen terminal 3 first thing in the morning. I am sure that they would agree with me that it would be a considerable help in making passage through immigration control even quicker if the airlines could arrange things so that 70 per cent. of all their long-distance flights did not arrive between 6 am and 10 am —but I fear that that is a vain hope.
On after-entry control, the report takes the view that:
The police should not participate in immigration control work as a matter of routine".
It complains of large-scale joint operations by the police and the immigration service. That recommendation is a useful reminder of the fact that the gestation period of the report has been twice as long as that of an elephant.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: That was the Government's doing. They took the matter to the court.

Mr. Waddington: Of course it was not the Government's doing.
As a result, some of the recommendations have been overtaken by events and are therefore misleading. The right hon. Gentleman says that it was our doing because we took the matter to the court, but in fact the gestation period from the beginning of the investigation to production of the report was twice as long as that of an elephant.
As long ago as December 1980 my right hon. and learned Friend approved new guidelines emphasising the sensitivity of joint operations and the care that is needed, if they take place, to avoid any action likely to cause justifiable complaint. Since then, there have been just 10 joint operations in which 153 people in total were interviewed, no fewer than 130 of whom were found to be here in breach of the law. In 1984 there was just one operation. Ten people were interviewed, nine of whom were found to be here illegally. Any fair-minded person would agree that there is no evidence in those figures of oppression in the enforcement of the controls.
The House will agree that we cannot just ignore intelligence about illegal immigrants. To do so would be bad for community relations. However, there is no doubt that the community relations implications of operations should be borne in mind and that, generally speaking, it is better that enforcement work should be carried out by immigration staff rather than the police.
I will not attempt to go through the detailed recommendations. Hon. Members will mention those that they think most important, and I am anxious to hear what they say so that we can take the views of the House into account before reaching our final conclusions. Some of the recommendations we readily accept, such as that relating to the practice of requesting authorisation from applicants from the Indian subcontinent to make tax checks. But, as I have already said, some of the report's recommendations seem to us pretty odd. For example, its conclusion that appeals should be heard by a panel of three adjudicators rather than by one would do no more than add to the very delays in the hearing of appeals of which it complains. However, we are looking at all the suggestions and we shall be giving a detailed response as soon as possible to the chairman of the CRE.

Mr. Eric Forth: Does my right hon. and learned Friend intend to give the House his estimate of the immediate or medium-term effect on immigration if all the recommendations of the report were carried out? It would be of interest to the House, in deciding how to respond to the report, to know the effect of the report's recommendations on all the communities in this country.

Mr. Waddington: That would be a most difficult exercise. However, I have tried to price—as it were—the speech made recently by the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs). Scrapping primary purpose would mean another 1,500. Giving settled women the right to bring in husbands would mean another 2,500. Allowing all east African Asians in immediately would mean another 3,300 heads of families, not counting the accompanying dependants. In that case, too, one has no idea how many new applicants might join the queue out of the estimated 30,000 east African Asians in India. We do not know how many applications there would be from elderly dependants, so the figure is not quantifiable. The irresponsible pledge by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) to repeal the Immigration Act, if it made any sense at all, would mean tens of thousands of immigrants. Clearly the right hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense.

Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. and learned Friend comment on the general impression given by the Opposition that they would exercise their discretion much more liberally? The Home Secretary has a general discretion to allow applicants in outside the rules.

Mr. Waddington: My hon. Friends must reach their own conclusions. The right hon. Gentleman's remarks were the height of irresponsibility. We shall do our best to work out what he meant, and I shall comment on his speech in a moment.

Mr. Max Maddent: In pricing these matters, will the Minister confirm that primary immigration ceased some time ago? Will he tell us how many people leave the country every year? Will he confirm that in each of the past few years, there has been net emigration from this country?

Mr. Waddington: The answer depends on what one means by primary immigration. In my view, every husband or fiancé who joins a woman who is settled here is an example of primary immigration. We are fooling ourselves if we say otherwise. On the question of net emigration, I believe that generally speaking the hon. Gentleman is right, but in 1983 there was net immigration.

Mr. Jack Straw: rose —

Mr. Waddington: I should press on, but the hon. Gentleman is a decent chap.

Mr. Straw: That remark makes me hesitate to intervene. I hope that it will be excised from the record.
The suggestion that the immigration of fiancés is primary immigration is not only deeply
offensive to the families involved but contrary to the views of the Prime Minister, who has repeatedly claimed, for the benefit of the far Right of the Conservative party, that primary immigration has ended.

Mr. Waddington: We always talked of primary immigration as meaning the immigration of new heads of


families. If a young man enters this country to found a new family, albeit by marrying a girl who is already here, that is by my lights a straightforward case of primary immigration.
We shall not make much progress by debating definitions. I stand by my view of the matter.

Mr. Dave Nellist: There are some 17,000 wives and families in the Indian subcontinent who are waiting for entry clearance. Is it not true that even if they all arrived tomorrow morning, that would still represent only 3 per cent. of the British birth rate and there would still be a net outflow of emigrants from this country?

Mr. Waddington: I do not know about 3 per cent., but the British people would be astonished if we were to announce tomorrow that 30,000 people could come straight into the country, if only because they would ask where such people could go to, and where they could be housed. What happens if 15,000 come to Tower Hamlets, as the families of Bangladeshis? Who will find houses, schools and hospitals for them? The proposition is ridiculous.
Obviously it is in the nature of immigration control that distress and hardship can sometimes be caused to those affected by it. Living in a country such as ours is considered a great prize and failing to attain that benefit can be a serious matter. Hon. Members know that it is in the very nature of my job that difficult decisions have to be made. Often, I am asked to allow someone to enter or to remain here, although quite clearly he has no right to do so under the rules. In such cases, I have to bear in mind that if discretion were regularly exercised other than in really exceptional circumstances, one would run the risk of undermining the rules themselves and one certainly would not be acting fairly to the vast majority of people who are prepared to abide by the rules.
In many cases discretion is exercised, as all hon. Members know, and I suppose that it is my misfortune that those cases are rarely the ones that attract publicity in the press. However, because of my responsibilities, I have had the opportunity over the years of meeting all sorts of people among the ethnic minority communities, and my belief is that the vast majority of people, from whatever community they come, accept the need for control and recognise that in seeking to strike a balance between the need to prevent evasion and the need to see that people get their rights, we have got things about right. That explains why immigration was not an issue at the last election. That is why a recent MORI poll showed that only 2 per cent. of the population consider immigration as an important issue facing the country today. Long may that remain the case.
That brings me to the right hon. Member for Gorton. I hope that, now he has got Gorton in the bag and does not have to ingratiate himself with some of the nastier people in his constituency, he will begin to behave more reasonably, but I have my doubts. When we last debated immigration, he produced a wealth of statistics designed to show that under the Conservatives the control has been operated with little compassion, but which in fact showed that little had changed since the days of Labour. He succeeded in shooting himself in the foot by complaining about the refusal rate in the case of family applications in

Dhaka when the highest such refusal rate occurred in 1977 when it was 62 per cent. So the House would be wise to be wary of the right hon. Gentlman's statistics today.
In one respect, however, I did the right hon. Gentleman an injustice. He complained about a 100 per cent. refusal rate for male fiancés in Bangladesh in the first quarter of 1984. I rudely replied that that did not mean much because there had been only three applicants. I was wrong and I apologise to the right hon Gentleman. There was in fact one applicant. One applicant, one refusal, is 100 per cent. Those are the sort of statistic in which the right hon. Gentleman deals.
The right hon. Member has been at it again. He made a most disgraceful speech in April at the United Kingdom immigration advisory service conference. I make no complaint about the fact that it was, as usual, over-spiced with the adjective "odious". My hon. Friends might like to count the "odiouses" in the right hon. Gentleman's speech. it is rather like counting the bridges going down the motorway to keep oneself awake. At that conference, the right hon. Gentleman's theme was that the present law is detestable and administerd in a nasty fashion by all concerned, Ministers and civil servants alike.
The right hon. Gentleman forbore to mention that the law to which he was referring was that applied by the Labour Government when they were in power. But the Immigration Act 1971, he said, would go if Labour again took office. He did not remind his audience that back in the 1960s, the Labour Government promised to repeal the Commonwealth Immigrants Act but in 1968 actually extended its scope, removing from United Kingdom passport holders the right to come here. He complained about the control of entry of husbands and fiancés and there has been some discussion about that this afternoon, but he carefully concealed the fact that, in 1970, the Labour Government introduced rules that banned the entry of husbands save at the discretion of the Secretary of State.

Ms. Clare Short: What about 1975?

Mr. Waddington: I am coming to that. I am glad that the hon. Lady mentioned that. The right hon. Member for Gorton failed to do so. He did not say that the last Labour Government, of which he was a member, after coming into office in 1974 and relaxing the husband and fiancé rules, then discovered less than three years later that they could not sustain the position, and in 1977 tightened them up again. The right hon. Gentleman did not tell that to the delegates at the conference.
It is impossible to envisage a less productive and more mischievous exercise in terms of community relations than that on which the right hon. Gentleman is engaged. Judging by Labour's past record, the promises that he is making will never be fulfilled, but if they are—if the Immigration Act were repealed and control after control were scrapped — I cannot imagine anything more disastrous for community relations. As to his vilification of those — both civil servants and politicians — responsible for the control, that sort of language can comfort only those who are out to create not harmony in society but division and conflict.
We are now a multiracial society. Half our neighbours whose origins lie in the Indian subcontinent, Africa or the West Indies, were born here. This is their home. Our job is to see that in this multiracial society there is opportunity for all. It is our job to concentrate on that rather than whip


up trouble over immigration controls of a kind which the whole of the western world has felt obliged to impose, and which are in the interests of us all—black and white alike.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I promise that I shall not use the word odious about the Minister's speech—it is all too inadequate a word for the repulsive tirade to which we have been subjected.
The Labour party is glad that, after so much delay, we are at last debating the CRE report. The Government have treated the House offensively in three respects. First, the Home Secretary has shirked his responsibilities by failing to take part in the debate. It is disgraceful that he has not even bothered to turn up for it. It is extraordinary that, in his two years of office, the Home Secretary has not spoken once on the subject of immigration in the House, or answered a single oral question about it. His sole acceptance of accountability to the House on a matter of major importance, in which he is personally responsible —for example, he signs deportation orders—was one sentence of 11 words spoken last November as a reply to a supplementary to a question on quite another topic. Even those 11 words were inaccurate and misleading.

Mr. Waddington: The House will know that I have day-to-day responsibility for these matters, and I think that many hon. Members would have been surprised if I had not been here to account for the way in which I have dealt with matters. The right hon. Gentleman wanted my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to speak, I believe, because he thought that it would elevate his own importance, of which he has an exaggerated view.

Mr. Kaufman: It would, of course, be impossible to exaggerate the hon. and learned Gentleman's estimate of his importance.
The Home Secretary trots along here to speak on data protection Bills, on BBC licences and on all kinds of things, but when we have a debate about the family life and the fate of hundreds of thousands of people he does not turn up or even send an apology; we have no idea where he is. His behaviour is disgraceful and will be noted by the ethnic minorites as his concern for their needs.
We complain that, before the House has even had the chance to debate the report, the Government have rejected two of its recommendations — on tape recording of interviews and on local consulates in Mirpur and Sylhet. Those recommendations were rejected in written answers from a junior Foreign Office Minister.
We resent the Government's failure to put down for today's debate even a "take note" motion, as in the case of the Auld report. We know why. They wished to prevent an amendment from us which would have welcomed the report. It is not surprising that the Government did not put down a motion because, first, they tried to stop the CRE conducting the investigation that led to the report. The Government took the matter to the courts. They delayed the investigation by 18 months. They sought to have the terms of reference changed and weakened. Then, when the report was finally published, they attacked it most viciously. Today the Minister of State did it again, calling it odd and perverse. He gave a strange and distorted impression of the contents of the report. For our part, we

congratulate the CRE on persevering against ministerial sabotage and insults to produce one of the most important documents on immigration ever published in this country.
The scope of the report is narrow. It deals simply with immigration control procedures, but it turns the spotlight on the Government's attitude on immigration policy and consequently on racial relations. It reveals Ministers to be conducting policies on these vital matters which are discriminatory to the point of being racialist. If anybody questions what I have to say on this, I shall quote from the report itself to confirm the indictment.
It is a remarkable report. It is copiously and painstakingly documented and it has a shameful story to tell. For example, it describes the attitude of entry clearance officers in the Indian subcontinent to those they interview. It describes cursory and insulting way in which they too often treat those with whom they are dealing. This is a quotation:
CRE staff observed about 20 inteviews in Dhaka and Islamabad. It was noted that ECOs only rarely addressed interviewees directly, putting their questions through the interpreter in the third person. ECOs often gave the impression of being bored or irritated with their work, showing this, for example, by persistently tapping their pencil on the desk or drumming their fingers. In one case observed, the ECO became irritated with the answers being given and showed this by rounding on the applicant and shouting at her—one of the rare occasions we saw an ECO address an interviewee directly.
Virtually all of the interviews observed by CRE staff were interrupted at least once by the entry into the room of other staff of the post or by telephone calls being taken by the ECO. In one case, the ECO took a personal call lasting many minutes".
The accounts in the report are confirmed by representatives of Manchester law centre who went to Islamabad last month and who were present at interviews there. They report that in their presence one interview was interrupted by a telephone call about the embassy's supply of Easter eggs. That interrupted an interview affecting the life and future of those concerned.
One reason for what the CRE report describes as
a dismissive or contemptuous attitude to applicants
is, according to the report,
the low esteem in which applicants have been held".
It quotes from a report prepared by staff at terminal 2 at Heathrow—the officials to whom the Minister has paid tribute. That report says:
Moroccans from the 'immigrant areas' seem, like Mirpuris,"—
that is, Pakistanis—
to be both simple and cunning".
The contempt and low esteem are in no way more significantly demonstrated than in the attitude of ECOs and immigration officers to the refusal of applications. The CRE report states:
Other material we saw appeared to us to suggest that, in some cases at least, the prospect of securing refusals of entry clearances would generate greater enthusiasm than that of issuing them. A note by an entry clearance officer on one file, for example, warned other officers not to handle it: 'I want to do this re-interview myself. Hands off. This must be the year's strongest refusal.'
The CRE report quotes immigration officers as stating that they have been warned about producing too few refusals. Chief immigration officers are quoted in the report as admitting that if an officer's refusal rate was well below average the chief immigration officer would want to know why. What is more, certain countries emerged clearly as being especially subject to discrimination.
Dealing with the treatment of visitors, the report states that in 1980 passengers from the new Commonwealth and


from Pakistan were 30 times more likely to be refused admission than those from the old Commonwealth. It said that in the first nine months of 1982 under 1 per cent. of Americans and Canadians, under 1·5 per cent. of Australians and under 2 per cent. of New Zealanders were admitted to Britain as visitors in the code 3 or doubtful category, while of non-business visitors from India or Pakistan code 3 admissions covered 20 per cent., from Bangladesh over 30 per cent, and from Ghana 40 per cent.
In the first 10 months of 1984, people from 104 countries were detained overnight at ports of entry other than Queen's building, Heathrow, for which no figures are available. Detention of people from the four countries of Nigeria, Ghana, India and Pakistan accounted for 52 per cent. of all detentions. That is more than the other 100 countries put together. In certain months in 1982, Ghanaians, Nigerians, Pakistanis and Indians accounted for 70 per cent. of visitors required to submit to further examination. This massive disproportion was due partly to deliberate discrimination against people who were not obviously affluent.
The report quotes one note from an ECO in Islamabad which said of the person being interviewed:
Obviously loaded and very good class. Issue.
Of another well-to-do Pakistani, an ECO noted:
Unfortunately this looks like an issue.… I have no choice but to issue.
The report attacks what it described as
double standards—trust of the wealthy and suspicion of the poor".
That is confirmed in a note submitted to the CRE from the Home Office itself, which says:
nationals of rich countries are likely to be subject to less intensive scrutiny and are less likely to be refused than nationals of poor countries.
That is Home Office policy as explained by the Home Office itself.
If someone is rich or is an Australian he is treated better than if he is rich and Pakistani. These offensive attitudes stem from the latest dodge that the Home Office has adopted and about which we heard again this afternoon from the Minister of State—the concept of "pressure to immigrate" countries. There is no published list of such countries so that we may know which they are. They are chosen at whim by ECOs and others, sometimes completely inconsistently; some will be on one ECO's list and some on another's. For example, the United States is on one ECO's list as a "pressure to immigrate" country. The effect of the "pressure to immigrate" concept is described harshly in the CRE report:
The evidence put to us by the Home Office does not, in our view, provide sufficient justificaton for basing the priorities and decision-criteria in immigration control on the pressure to immigrate argument. The concept relates essentially to poor countries and brings under particular suspicion visitors from countries which have established ethnic minority communities here. While some such people undeniably evade the controls, so, undeniably — and probably more easily — do considerable numbers of people from wealthier countries who might not be regarded as having strong incentives to do so. The effect of the argument is to cause the procedures to discriminate, in effect, against black people in particular.
Even the Home Office gave the game away. In a note which it sent to the CRE during the inquiry, it stated:
Visitors from new Commonwealth countries are more likely than others to be treated as doubtful visitors.
The report lists monstrous devices and strategems employed against would-be visitors and people who apply for settlement. None is more disgraceful than the use of the primary purpose rule as a deliberate way of getting

round the legal entitlement in the rules. As administered, it is degraded too often into being merely a paper entitlement. It is the right under the rules of husbands and male fiancés, especially from the Indian subcontinent, to gain entry to the United Kingdom to join their womenfolk. The manoeuvre has grown to intolerable levels.
In 1980, primary purpose accounted in whole or in part for less than 20 per cent. of refusals of applications by husbands and male fiancés. By 1983, it accounted for 75 per cent. of refusals. A parliamentary reply on 20 May to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) shows that, by the last three quarters of 1984, primary purpose accounted for between 80 and 90 per cent. of refusals, and for about 40 per cent. of all applications decided, whether favourably or unfavourably. That shoddy dodge is now substantially negating the statutory right of those men to enter Britain.
Deliberate and carefully planned measures are adopted to achieve those primary purpose refusals. What is more, they are contained in official guidance issued by Ministers to entry clearance officers in September 1983. That guidance even suggests questions which should be used to trap applicants into making a statement which would justify refusing them entry under the primary purpose rule. In its report the CRE described those questions as
ambiguous and unfair.
I shall give three, which are given in the report. They are
If your fiancée did not live in the United Kingdom, would you still go to her home to live?
[HON. MEMBERS: "What is wrong with that?"] The CRE condemns these questions. I note Conservative Members' attitude to this. Their inherent racism emerges at every opportunity. The other two questions are
If you were not able to live with your fiancée in the United Kingdom, would you still marry her?
If your family had asked you to marry a local girl, would you have done so?
Those questions are denounced by the CRE in its report, but to a supporter of apartheid, such as the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle), those questions are everything that they should be.

Mr. John Carlisle: Will the right hon. Gentleman withdraw his remark describing me as a supporter of apartheid? That is a gross insult to me and to the House. I appeal to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that should be withdrawn.

Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman denies that he is a supporter of apartheid. I am delighted to have that on the record.

Mr. Carlisle: I am delighted to confirm that I have always made it my business on the Floor of the House and elsewhere to say that I abhor apartheid, and have al ways said so. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for withdrawing his remark.

Mr. Kaufman: I am delighted to have that on the record.

Mr. David Winnick: Although it is true that the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Carlisle) has criticised apartheid, is it not a fact that he takes every opportunity to act as an apologist for the South African authorities?

Mr. Kaufman: If the hon. Gentleman would like also to deny that, I shall be glad to give way to him.

Mr. John Carlisle: Although the point is well out of order, I am delighted to say that I am not an apologist for any Government, even my own.

Mr. Kaufman: That was less than full-hearted dissent. Admissions are delayed by the deliberate use of queues.
In its report the CRE alleges the
use of the queue as a deterrent to applications and as a means of restricting the rate of immigration.
The Home Secretary, in his speech to the United Kingdom immigration advisory service conference in Manchester last month, attempted to counter that CRE allegation when he said:
I must make it clear … that the Government does not maintain these queues as a deliberate measure to control the flow of immigration.
That statement was simply untrue. It is shown to be untrue by an internal Home Office document, of which I have a copy. About two years ago it was submitted to the Minister for guidance. So that the House can hear what the Home Office says when it thinks that it is not being observed, I shall quote from it. As I said, it was a briefing document for the Minister. It states:
In two significant areas a system of queues operates to regulate the flow of immigrants … The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is responsible for the administration of entry clearance work and shares responsibility with us for the number of Entry Clearance Officers which, in practice, is the primary regulator of the number of husbands, wives, and children, and male fiances admitted from the sub-continent in any one year. There are about 40 ECOs in the sub-continent at present. Provided the queues do not become too long, this form of administrative regulation can continue; but an acknowledged policy of deliberate delay without legislation giving power to impose quotas … would run risks in the domestic courts and under the European Convention of Human Rights.

Mr. Waddington: I wish to make two points. Is it not a fact that the number of ECOs in post during the period of the Labour Government was the primary regulator of the number of people who came to the United Kingdom? Is it not plain common sense that if there are any queues, it is because the Government have decided that they cannot appoint as many ECOs in the Indian sub-continent as would be necessary to clear those queues? As I have pointed out that, generally speaking, the waiting times now are shorter than they were under the Labour Government, how does the right hon. Gentleman dare to make this criticism, as if it were directed against the Conservative Government only, and if it were true, would it not be equally apt against the Labour Government?

Mr. Kaufman: rose —

Mr. Waddington: I have not finished. I have another point. Will the right hon. Gentleman remember that the briefing paper to which he referred was apparently prepared by civil servants when they were whiling away the time during the general election campaign? Had the country suffered the misfortune of having a Labour Government returned, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would have been asked to read the document.

Mr. Kaufman: Had that document come to me, I would have torn it into two immediately. The Minister has admitted the authenticity of the document. However, the Home Secretary said:
I must make it clear … that the Government does not maintain these queues as a deliberate measure to control the flow of immigration.
The internal Home Office document states:
In two significant areas a system of queues operates to regulate the flow of immigrants.

The Minister is now saying that the queues are used to regulate immigration, so the Home Secretary was not telling the truth.

Mr. Waddington: The right hon. Gentleman must stop talking nonsense. Of course the number of entry clearance officers regulates the number of people who are standing in the queue, and regulates the number of people who are admitted.
The right hon. Gentleman is saying that what must be inferred from that briefing paper is not a matter of fact, but a matter of intention. I am telling him that the intention is not to limit the number of people; the intention is to devote to entry clearance the resources that can be devoted to it.
The right hon. Gentleman has a nerve to raise this matter, because there are more entry clearance officers in Dacca now than there were under the Labour Government.

Mr. Kaufman: The problem is that the Home Secretary did not say what the Minister of State is saying. The Minister of State is repudiating the Home Secretary, which is par for the course, since the Home Secretary needs repudiating. But we are glad that the Minister of State has joined us in doing so and has admitted that the Government are using queues to regulate immigration into Britain—something that we had always believed in any case.
The report is clear about that. It states that the immigration rules
have been drafted and administered in such a way as to minimise the numbers of people who may be able to benefit from them.
They are not just drafted, but administered, too.
The report repeatedly denounces the policy for being aimed at detecting the bogus at the cost of harming the genuine. It states:
In our view, however, the emphasis on the exclusion of the ineligible has gone too far. It has resulted not only in inconvenience—serious and costly as that can be—for genuine applicants, but in an unacceptably high level of risk that applicants who are in fact genuine can fail to satisfy the officer. In effect, the system is operated as if this is the more acceptable of the two basic possible kinds of error.
The CRE is in no doubt about the result of all this. It declares that, as a result of those policies — all the phrases that I shall use are direct quotes from the report—
the interests of race relations in the United Kingdom have been damaged,
that this is a system
which tends to be racially discriminatory in effect,
that the Government's policy statements and staff guidance,
contain built-in biases against some racial groups,
that they create
stress and fears among ethnic minority communities,
and that controls operate
to the disadvantage of some racial groups and to the detriment of race relations.
That is the verdict of the body charged with assisting in race relations.
What is more, the CRE report pins the responsibility firmly where it belongs. It states:
It would be entirely unjustified to place on staff the responsibility for the fundamental criticisms which can be made of the administration and operation of the control; the criticisms we have made are of the system that the staff operate, and we stress that distinction … The essential origins of the behaviour and decisions which have given rise to allegations of racism in the controls are the procedures and instructions themselves … they result from staff doing what is expected of them.


What the report is saying, even if it does so delicately, is that we have a racialist system because we have racialist Ministers. Moreover, their racialism is motivated by the wish to prevent a tiny number of people—possibly no more than 5,000 in the first year and fewer after that—from coming to Britain—

Mr. Waddington: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kaufman: No.

Mr. Waddington: rose —

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The Minister knows that if the right hon. Gentleman does not give way he cannot intervene.

Mr. Waddington: The right hon. Gentleman has made a serious allegation. He said that the trouble was caused by racialist Ministers. He is entitled to that opinion. I believe that it is nonsense, because, as I said, the control operates in much the same way as it did under the Labour Government. Of course, I am prepared to take his abuse, but he must not imply that the report states that the trouble is caused by racialist Ministers. It says nothing of the sort.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is not allowed to accuse the Minister of being racialist; what he said was that, in his judgment, the report was alleging that.

Mr. Kaufman: I repeat what the report states:
The criticisms we have made are of the system that the staff operate … they result from staff doing what is expected of them.
Who is expecting it? Who is in charge of the staff and who is responsible for them?

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kaufman: Never to the hon. Gentleman.
The report states, albeit delicately, what I have quoted. The Minister was good enough to refer to what I said in Manchester at the UKIAS conference. I repeat it now. This system will change, and change decisively. The Labour Government who will come into office after the next election will operate firm immigration controls. All democratic countries have such controls, and from my continuing and close contact with the ethnic minorities, I know that they support such controls. We shall remove the present legislation from the statute book and replace it with an Act which will be not only non-sexist, but anti-sexist. It will be not only non-racist, but anti-racist. Racism will not be tolerated at the posts abroad, at the ports of entry here, or in the Home Office itself. We intend to ensure that once this shameful Government are removed from office, no report such as this from the CRE will be possible, because the conditions that brought it about will be eliminated. That is the pledge that I give, and that is the pledge that we are determined to fulfil.

Mr. Geoff Lawler: The unfortunate nature of immigration debates is that they tend to bring out the worst in some hon. Members. It is a pity that more rational terms cannot be used. Bandying insults about in the House does nothing for race relations.
Immigration policy and procedures are essential to race relations and harmony. The host community needs the

reassurance that those who are not entitled to enter this country are excluded, that access to jobs and housing is protected and that the social. fabric will be sustained. People who are settled here and who seek to bring in relations or have visitors also need the reassurance that the right of access for visitors and relations is protected, so that they can enter the country unhindered. Increasingly, the two groups have merged. Those seeking to bring in relations or visitors are now part of the host community, but they are part of a host community that is disproportionately affected by unemployment and inadequate housing and therefore have even more reason to ensure that the social fabric is not strained to breaking point.
For those reasons, mass primary immigration has been abolished. That is accepted by all as necessary and desirable. However, the prevention of genuine visitors from coming into the country and the separation of genuine families is not necessary or desirable. We are questioning not the immigration rules, but how they are applied and their affect. We are considering the recognition of the right of husbands to join wives, wives to join husbands and children to join their parents. Those rights are not being questioned. We should not have had this report, nor should we be holding this debate, if the procedure used to effect those rules did not impinge upon those rights. The evidence, both from this report, flawed though it may be in many respects, and from my own experience and that of many hon. Members who have substantial ethnic minority communities in their constituencies, is that some of the procedures are flawed and sometimes impinge upon those genuine rights.
For example, in the city of Bradford there are 64 divided families in the Bangladesh community. Somewhere in Bangladesh 64 men have wives and families. As they would be the first to acknowledge, some of the blame must lie with them for the fact that those families are not united. They would readily admit now that they submitted false tax claims and misleading documentation, but it is still undeniably the case that with better advice and better productivity on the part of entry clearance officers in Dhaka those families could be reunited. It is a finite number. Therefore we should help to ensure that in future their applications do not fail through lack of evidence, or insufficient documentation, or confusion at interviews. The immigration department should help to unite those families.
If a wife in Sylhet in Bangladesh goes to Dhaka for an interview she knows that her case is genuine and she may therefore naively assume that she does not need to produce huge amounts of evidence. She is convinced of her case and does not realise how much detail is needed to persuade the ECO of her case. Therefore, it is important that those who apply to ECOs should be advised of all the documentation that they need to bring with them, including the documentation which is referred to in recommendation 5 of the report:
that which, if available, would support the claim but is not essential.
That is a crucial point. Time and time again I have come across cases where affidavits should have been obtained from important people. If the documentation that was not thought to be essential had been gathered together, confusion at interviews could have been avoided and cases


could have been cleared. I hope that the immigration department will act upon that very important recommendation.
The immigration advisory services that are located in Mirpur and Sylhet have been mentioned at meetings with my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State and assurances have been received, but it is necessary to repeat how important it is that those advisory services should be provided with adequate staff and resources. By doing so, not only are applicants helped to get it right when they come to ECOs but the time of the ECOs is saved through not having to ask people to bring back the right documents or having to conduct subsequent interviews. The time that is saved would help to ensure that other families can be reunited, to say nothing of the anguish that could be prevented by not having to refuse applications.
The report also refers to the use of tape recorders. The answers that we have received from my hon. and learned Friend on the use of tape recorders are inadequate and unworthy. I see no reason why there should not be such an experiment as that which is being conducted by police forces in this country. A great deal of confusion would be saved if tape recordings were available at appeals.

Mr. Nellist: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lawler: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman after I have finished making this point.
It is surely nonsense that in 1985 all the documents and papers relating to immigration cases at our posts overseas are kept in files. Why are computers not installed in our overseas missions? They would greatly speed up the process of dealing with applications and would allow greater flexibility and overcome one of the major objections to having further missions in Sylhet and Mirpur. Only one terminal would be needed at the immigration advisory offices in those districts to enable cases to be dealt with far more speedily.

Mr. Nellist: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have been pressing the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Home Office to introduce the tape recording of interviews? Is he also aware that there was an experiment in 1978? According to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who wrote to the Select Committee on Home Affairs in 1982, the reason why tape recording was not introduced generally was because
problems of extraneous noise and of operating with inadequate facilities suggested that recording of a suitable standard could only be produced by the use of sophisticated equipment in rooms which had been soundproofed.
If those problems are encountered with tape recording, what about the problems involved in interviewing officers getting the interviews right in the first place?

Mr. Lawler: If that were a problem, I am sure that, because of the amount of extraneous noise that is generated, the proceedings of the House would not be broadcast. The hon. Gentleman's point should be re-examined by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. It is worthy of the Government's attention.
In 1984, about 18,096 visitors were refused entry to this country. It was a tiny proportion of the total number of people who arrived. Entry was refused to about 1·1 per cent. of the total number of visitors from the Indian subcontinent. However, the figures do not indicate the

number of people who are kept for a second interview and the length of time that they have to wait. I have visited terminal 3 on two occasions to see the immigration facilities. The majority of people go through the interview with no trouble. However, those who are kept for a second interview sometimes have to wait for hours and even days. That creates a great deal of anxiety not only for the visitors but for their sponsors, who are anxious and want to know what the visitors' fate will be.
Given the already generous attitude towards the granting of temporary admission—about 8,500 last year, or 47 per cent. — and given also the tiny number of those who abscond — last year 187, or 2 per cent., which was only a marginal increase on the year before — it is apparent to me that more inquiries could be made a few days after people had been admitted to this country, thus allowing the visitor to leave the airport with a sponsor. Recommendation 42 of the report asks for the removal of the distinction when allocating time limits on those visitors who are considered doubtful and those who are considered genuine. I would suggest the reverse. If all visitors who are considered doubtful were given temporary admission with a short time limit of two or three weeks to allow further inquiries to take place, they could take place locally and the final decision could be made known to them at the end of that short period. The exception to that would be those cases where the decision is immediately obvious—for example, the use of fraudulent documents, undesirable persons, and so on. Apart from the advantage of more local interviews, unnecessary waiting would be avoided for those who are eventually allowed entry into the country as genuine visitors.

Mr. John Carlisle: My hon. Friend must understand that there is a real difference between the genuine and the non-genuine visitor. He will know from his experience that some of those who are let in on temporary admission then disappear. They are not included in the official figures. If Her Majesty's Government were to follow the line advocated by my hon. Friend, whereby everybody came in for two or three weeks, does he not accept that substantial numbers could slip through the net and completely evade all immigration controls?

Mr. Lawler: I shall develop that point later and will answer my hon. Friend. However, one returns to the fact that a minute proportion of those who are given temporary admission abscond. Not the least advantage of this change of procedure would be that Members of Parliament would not be disturbed at midnight or at two o'clock in the morning by people telephoning from the airport. To contact Members of Parliament is not only highly inconvenient for hon. Members but is also grossly unfair to visitors to this country. According to the immigration authorities, about 80 or 85 per cent. of those coming from the Indian subcontinent are aware of how to contact their Member of Parliament. What about the other 15 per cent. who are not aware of the facility? Furthermore, what about the person who arrives, finds that the Member of Parliament's name and telephone number is not in his diary or that the Member of Parliament is away for the weekend, and who is due to be put on a flight back the next day?

Mr. Waddington: My hon. Friend raises an important point which worries many hon. Members, but is he aware of the legal difficulty here? People tend to imagine that


temporary admission means granting a visit. In fact, it is an alternative to detention when it has already been adjudged that the person is not a visitor. My hon. Friend must realise, therefore, that the course that he suggests would involve changing the law so that people found not to be visitors can still be admitted.

Mr. Lawler: People regarded as doubtful on arrival are usually given temporary admission as a result of representations by a Member of Parliament. We need to find a way of avoiding the need always to contact a Member of Parliament. If temporary admittance is given on a very limited basis for two or three weeks, the person's passport being marked accordingly, the inquiries could take place locally without the Member of Parliament having to be involved. It is difficult to make a considered judgment when one is telephoned at 2 am, so representations tend to be made automatically. In other words, Members of Parliament have to vouch for people whom they do not really know so as not to deny those people the right to have their cases examined. In my experience such people usually have very good reasons for being here and the vast majority prove to be genuine visitors or leave as soon as they are instructed to do so.
The number of representations that I have made must run into more than three figures, but I have been let down only once in the past two years. On that occasion, the sponsor and the local Bangladesh community association joined me in appealing for the gentleman in question to give himself up because they felt they had been betrayed.
If the admittance procedures are changed, the Home Office rather than the Member of Parliament will bear the responsibility for admitting people who may abscond. The opportunity for further investigation of a person's case should not depend on the sponsor having the Member's name in his diary and hoping that the Member is not on a delegation to Silesia and his agent on a fishing weekend.

Mr. Terry Dicks: My hon. Friend seems to be unaware that under the present system an incoming immigrant can apply to any Member of Parliament. Heathrow airport is in my constituency. When I have refused to intervene in a case because I do not regard it as justified, the people in question have gone to another Member who has then intervened on their behalf, so the pressure on particular Members of Parliament is non-existent.

Mr. Lawler: We have all been contacted on behalf of other hon. Members' constituents. Nevertheless, the system is grossly unfair. We know that 15 per cent. of these people do not contact any Member of Parliament. I am sure that many of them, if they cannot contact a particular Member, then get flummoxed and do not know how to get hold of another. The system clearly needs revision.
In conclusion, I appreciate the pressure-to-emigrate argument and it should not be dismissed, but it is increasingly difficult for Members of Parliament to explain to second generation members of the Asian community why they have to contact their Member of Parliament if they wish to have a visitor to this country, when they have only to look at the white friends with whom they went to school and competed for jobs to know that they pay the same taxes and have the same responsibilities so they must have the same rights.
I hope that the Government will not dismiss the report out of hand but will make a very detailed response. The report is not perfect. It has many flaws, but it deals with areas of genuine concern to a significant proportion of our citizens and it identifies procedures which in some cases may hinder people obtaining that to which they are entitled. That is why the procedure must be reviewed. The immigration rules allow genuine visitors and dependants to enter this country. We must ensure that the operation of those rules does not have the opposite effect.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for hon. Members to take so long when so many others wish to speak in a very short debate? Will you ask Members to be brief?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should know that Mr. Speaker has already asked for brevity.

Hon. Members: The hon. Gentleman has only just arrived.

Mr. Corbyn: I have been here throughout the debate.

Mr. Robert Litherland: I shall be extremely brief because I appreciate that many hon. Members wish to speak in this important but short debate.
Many hon. Members will have seen people who regularly attend their advice bureaux from divided families, seeking assistance. In my constituency in inner Manchester the problem is so great that it has been recognised by Manchester city council, which recently sponsored two solicitors from the law centre to investigate cases of denial of entry to fiancés or husbands.
The solicitors' report makes remarkable reading. They attended entry clearance interviews. In relation to fiancés, the report explodes the myth that people are falling over themselves in their desire to enter the country and eagerly waiting for the next plane. In fact, many were reluctant to come because it meant giving up their homes and jobs. Many were under pressure from the fiancé's family already resident in the United Kingdom, to leave their home country and be united with their loved ones. That finding is contrary to all the Home Office propaganda about fiancés being anxious to come to this country.
A more sinister aspect revealed in the report was the nature of the role played by the embassy and the Home Office in Pakistan, which appeared to cause great confusion. The solicitors found that the process for gaining entrance to the United Kingdom was never explained to anybody. The law centre representatives felt that it was in the embassy's interest to create and perpetuate confusion, which would make a refusal much easier. Even after an applicant had been refused entrance, he or she was not told how long an appeal would take. In such cases, fiancés are aggrieved because they cannot plan for the future. The two solicitors concluded that the embassy visa section regarded its role not as a processer of applications having a neutral profile but rather as an apparatus to block Pakistani immigrants coming to the United Kingdom.
The solicitors stated:
We were frankly appalled by the organisation of the Embassy and the conduct of the ECOs. In the absence of any collective opposition in Pakistan and distanced from the opposition in the United Kingdom to immigration controls the Embassy appeared even more powerful and confident than the Home Office itself. Applicants are treated atrociously. The


Embassy opens at 8 am. Queues begin to form outside from about 7 am. Many people would have travelled hundreds of miles to get to the Embassy for their entry clearance interviews. Indeed a previous journey would have to have been made—as the Embassy insists that the original forms have to be completed at the Embassy itself. There are no definite appointment times. There are no facilities for children—although over half the people there are children. There are no drinks or food available in the Embassy. People in the waiting room are not informed as to what is happening. The waiting room itself is dark and tatty. It feels exactly like a police waiting room—except that on the walls there are travel posters about the beauty of Britain and the efficiency of British Airways! The waiting room itself is used by Embassy officials to attend to those people who have come to complete their application forms. A consequence of this is that everyone in the waiting room is privy to the details of the applicant's private life. After what may be several hours, those people who have come for their actual entry clearance interview are summoned to see an Entry Clearance Officer. From our own observations we can say that the 'interviews' are more in the form of an interrogation—either a subtle or a heavy interrogation. The assumption is that the applicants are always lying.
The report goes on to highlight many misgivings about the procedures involved. I have studied its observations and believe that the entry clearance officers use those procedures to cause delay, even if the law is on the side of those who apply to enter the United Kingdom. If and when the city council submits the report to the Home Office, I trust that the Home Secretary will study its findings carefully. The report is not negative but makes recommendations to alleviate a problem that causes so much human misery and involves a procedure that is quite inhumane.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: The casual observer who listened to our debates, and who heard the noise and, on occasion, the abuse—although I am sure that it would be within order—would conclude that the two great parties were vastly divided on this issue, and that when in office, they always behaved quite differently from each other. He would also conclude that there was no element of consensus and that there was never any attempt by either party to trim. But the casual observer would be all too wrong.
My hon. and learned Friend the Minister was very fair when he pointed out that, despite all the noise that the Labour party made in the 1970s, it was often much firmer when in office in imposing immigration controls than, in particular, my hon. and learned Friend's predecessor. I can see the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) sitting on the Labour Benches. She was a civil servant in the Home Office, and is married to Mr. Alex Lyon. Mr. Lyon fell out with the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan), because the latter was in favour of stricter immigration controls. If a casual observer listened to what the Labour party is now saying, it would be difficult for him to remember that when it was in power, it did its level best to control immigration. It did not do as much as I might have wished—

Ms. Clare Short: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will cast his mind back to the time when my husband was a Minister at the Home Office. At that time we had a Home Secretary who failed to implement the Labour party's policy on the reform of our immigration law. Perhaps I should remind the House which party that right hon. Member now

belongs to. That Home Secretary is now the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins). He defied Labour party policy and failed to implement it, and then left our party and joined another party that would like to claim that it has a pure record on such matters.

Mr. Budgen: The hon. Lady has made my point. When in office, Ministers come under the civilised influence of the Home Office and are away from the vulgarity of the electorate. Consequently, they start trimming towards the middle. The Labour party certainly did it, and this Government have done it, too, to a marked extent. There was a clear commitment to control immigration in certain specified ways in our 1979 manifesto. The 1980 immigration rules represented a slight deviation from the promises of 1979, while the 1983 rules represented a very substantial deviation from them. Before the 1983 rules came into effect, the Government in the last Parliament suffered its only defeat on the Floor of the House—[Interruption.] I played a small part in that defeat, and I do not apologise for that. In the argybargy that followed the defeat of those rules, there was discussion, in particular, of the position of Asian fiancés.
I was pleased to hear my hon. and learned Friend the Minister say, I think, for the first time, that he regards fiancés as being primary immigrants. That is what they are, because they have a right to bring their dependants into the country at a later stage. There was substantial discussion about whether marriage should be a reason for entry. Indeed, there was a lot of discussion about marriages of convenience and about arranged marriages. Eventually, a compromise was reached, which was a substantial derogation from the promises made before the 1979 election.
I recognise that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister was the architect of the 1983 compromise and has been the administrator of those rules. In my opinion, the compromise has worked quite well. One sign of that is that the Government Benches are not very full. If the compromise had not worked, and there was a general feeling throughout the country that immigration control had been substantially relaxed, these Benches would have been full of angry Tories— —

Ms. Clare Short: If the Daily Express ran a campaign, they would be.

Mr. Budgen: I do not think that the Daily Express will run a campaign, because there is not the public concern to justify it, to make it popular or to sell more copies of the Daily Express.
But even my hon. and learned Friend the Minister is not wholly immune to the elevated atmosphere of the Home Office. As he comes to believe that he will be entitled to his car in the next twenty years and as he sees his friends, the senior civil servants in the Home Office, as more important and persuasive than his vulgar Back-Bench colleagues, he will no doubt begin to feel that all-pervasive pressure to trim towards the centre. My objective is to ask him not to do that, because sufficient trimming has already been done. But it is obvious that two important new forces for trimming will be exerted on him.
The first is the argument by the Member of Parliament for a bit more peace and quiet. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Lawler) might like to listen to my next point, as it is really an answer to him. He was saying, in effect, that representing a constituency


in which many Asians are resident can sometimes be very inconvenient. It certainly can be, but no one forces us to represent such constituencies, and when we do so, we perfectly well understand that our Asian constituents may ring us up at very inconvenient times.
I operate the system as carefully and as fairly as I can, and without any prejudice against those who telephone me. Indeed, I am a frequent telephoner to the Home Office. Of course it is an inconvenient system; in some respects it is an arbitrary system. Like most things, it is not perfect. But I do not think that major relaxation of the rules, simply on the ground that the present system is inconvenient to Members of Parliament, is something that anyone would wish to sustain.
The second argument to trim is that the Asian community is becoming more and more successful, richer and richer and that they are now—I am pleased to say—becoming natural Tories. Sometimes my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister talks about the failure of the British people to live up to her shopkeeping ideals. She says that they do not work hard enough. That is true, but it is part of the splendid nature of the British people and I do not condemn them for a moment. But the very people who live up to my right hon. Friend's Victorian ideals are the Asians. I expect that an increasing number of them will vote Tory, rather in the way that in previous generations the Jews have voted Tory.
Just as the Government are perfectly able, on occasions, to disagree politely with our friends the farmers or our friends the small business men, so we can politely disagree with our friends the Asians. There is all too often an attitude in the Asian community that says, "Yes, we are in favour of strict control of immigration. Yes, we understand that that is necessary so that we may enjoy the benefits of a peaceful and cohesive society. But will you please let my daughter's boy friend in because he is a special case?" We must be firm about that. Of course we must be polite, and of course we must avoid being offensive — as we should avoid being offensive to farmers when they want rather higher prices for their cereals. We are perfectly capable of disagreeing with those who support us.
I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will reach the conclusion that the Tory party has trimmed enough, that we now have a perfectly sustainable settlement and that no matter how elevated the influences that will be brought to bear upon him, we should stick to the settlement.

Mr. Max Madden: Thirty out of every 100 of my constituents originate from the Indian subcontinent or from Afro-Caribbean countries. There is hardly a family among them that has not been touched by our immigration laws, rules and procedures. Each has a bitter complaint to make; each has a personal indictment of the immigration laws that we believe are racist and sexist.
We are told by the Home Secretary and other Ministers that the immigration and nationality laws are firm and fair. That has been repeated today. I refer them to a letter that has been sent to many hon. Members by the United Kingdom immigration advisory service. Commenting on the expression that firm and fair immigration controls mean good race relations, it states:
it is essentially a view of race relations from the point of view of the white majority. What it fails to take into account is

the alienation from British society felt by those who are British citizens, or lawfully settled in the United Kingdom but who find that they are unable to be united with their loved ones because of the obstacles inherent in the present operation of the immigration control procedures. Nor does the statement … take account of the alienation felt by sponsors, often long-established within their communities in the United Kingdom who may find themselves (far more often than those from other groups) at the 'sharp end' of an aggressive interrogation system when they go to meet relatives or visitors at Heathrow airport. Good race relations is a two-way process".
The indictment in the report that we are debating is that the authors of that valuable document believe that our current immigration control procedures are counter-productive in good race relations. It is a paradox that on the one hand the Home Office is seeking to promote good race relations, while on the other it is the political master of immigration control procedures that are acting decisively against good race relations.
The main finding of the report is that immigration control procedures place too much emphasis on preventing evasion and not enough on ensuring that genuine applicants and bona fide passengers can exercise their rights. Some of the matters to which the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) referred are not about the convenience of Members of Parliament. When we ask for greater use of the power of temporary admission, we are not concerned about the convenience of those who seek to come here as genuine visitors. We want to improve their convenience by allowing them to escape from Heathrow airport where they are detained for hours, even for days, to enable proper inquiries to be made, which, in most cases, confirm that they are genuine visitors entitled to visit the United Kingdom to see their relatives and friends.
In arguing for a just, fair and non-discriminatory immigration policy for the many people who originate from ethnic countries, we are not doing so to sustain or support the Conservative party. Many of the policies that the Government are implementing, especially high interest rates, are hitting hardest the businesses run by the ethnic minority communities. Indeed, our debate on Monday was nothing to do with giving customers a wider choice; it was about hitting the wages and conditions of those working in retail shops. That will hit the ethnic minorities very hard. It gives the green light to large, multi-retail outlets and supermarkets to trade seven days a week.
We want immigration control and entry clearance procedures that are operated by staff who respond sensitively and faithfully to political control—arid the political control stems from the Home Office and the Foreign Office, and it needs to be changed decisively. We must have immigration and entry clearance procedures that do not discriminate in the way that has been highlighted in the debate.
Unlike so many of those Conservative Members who face me, I am not a Queen's counsel or a solicitor—

Mr. Greville Janner: There are some behind my hon. Friend.

Mr. Madden: Indeed. I suggest that undoubtedly the QCs and solicitors sitting behind me will agree that the primary purpose test is a grotesquely unfair administrative procedure that has been introduced deliberately to minimise the number of fiancés allowed to enter this country. The Government should remove this grotesquely


unfair test. We have heard much about the courts today. I am told that such leading questions would be inadmissible in court.

Mr. Janner: It is not just that the questions are unclear and misleading; they are often asked in a language that the person who is expected to answer does not understand properly, so it is often quite impossible for that person to give an acceptable answer. That is one reason why the system is grossly unfair.

Mr. Madden: I am pleased to have confirmation from a prominent QC.
Those of us who represent ethnic minorities know that current procedures encourage entry clearance officers to refuse applications on the basis of answers in response to leading questions, without making sufficient effort to get relevant evidence. The result has been that many genuine arrangements for marriage and many marriages have been thrown into tatters. The United Kingdom immigration advisory service and many other organisations believe that the primary purpose rules are unworkable in the arranged marriage system on the Indian subcontinent and should be amended so that the requirement is simply that marriages should be genuine. That is the united view of Labour Members.
The fact of divided families sits uneasily with the bland assurances of the Prime Minister and the Government about their belief in the unity of the family. Men are often separated for several years from their wives and children. I know the difficulties of trying to explain to Ministers why a man in Britain should want to bring in a middle-aged woman and several children if they are not his wife and children. The Home Office, the immigration service and entry clearance officers insist on refusing to accept that the bulk of applications are genuine. The reasons for the long delays are utterly unconvincing. The queues could be swept away if there was the political will to do that.
In the past few months, the injury has been compounded by the Government's introduction of a fee for entry clearance. People have to wait for interviews, in which they are treated in a dismissive and disparaging way, and have to pay for the privilege of being interviewed. Long delays in interviewing applicants, inquisitorial methods, scant regard to documentary evidence of relevant issues and extremely unsatisfactory methods of reporting interviews are factors which unjustifiably enhance the restrictiveness of the immigration rules applicable to wives and children. Most applicants are assumed to be bogus. I have been told that many immigration and entry clearance officers work from the premise of applicants being deceitful and dishonest.
I support those hon. Members who have urged the tape recording of interviews. The arguments that have been used opposing my representations on this matter are utterly unconvincing. I hope that there will be progress with the tape recording of interviews and that, in the meantime, notes of entry clearance officers will be readily available, especially for appeal procedures. I am glad that the CRE has recommended that arrangements should be made for tape recordings, as did the Select Committee on Home Affairs several years ago.
I should like to do some special pleading. In Yorkshire, we have many people in the ethnic minorities, particularly from the Indian subcontinent. Many of them face great

difficulties as a result of the present arrangements. I hope that the Home Office can look sympathetically at the possibility of designating Leeds-Bradford airport as a port of entry. In that event, more flexible temporary admission rules would enable interviews to be conducted at Leeds-Bradford if we had more immigration officers there.
I should like more funds to be made available to the United Kingdom immigration advisory service so that it can expand its office in Leeds or a second office elsewhere in Yorkshire. We have heard much about the Government's views and their support for non-discrimination. All their appeals and statements will fall on stony ground, however, unless they respond much more willingly to the recommendations of the CRE report.
I welcome the debate, but I am sorry that the Minister of State rushed to the television studios before the ink on the report was dry to condemn it forthrightly. He described it as utterly flawed and unrealistic. He started with restraint, but his basic instincts took over later in his speech and in some of his interventions. I regret that, and it will be bad news for some of his hon. Friends who assiduously seek electoral support from the Asian community.
In a speech to the Monday Club, the Home Secretary said:
We utterly reject racialism, or cruel, discriminatory conduct of any kind against any human being".
The joint council for the welfare of immigrants says in a briefing which has been sent to all hon. Members:
These public statements, and the government's other commitments to preserve family life and the rights of the individual, need to be backed up by action to prevent the rights of black and Asian settlers here from being diminished by administrative means.
That is the indictment in the report. The Government are discriminating against black and Asian people, especially women, by administrative means. I urge the Government to respond sympathetically to the CRE's recommendations and, above all, to the appeals of Labour and some Conservative Members. These matters lie at the heart of good race relations. We need not crocodile tears and soggy speeches from the Home Secretary but decisive action to implement recommendations which would radically improve race relations and do a great deal to repair the lamentable performance of successive Governments. It is not our task to apologise for the deeds of past Labour Governments.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Why not?

Mr. Madden: Because we are pledged to the commitments which the shadow Home Secretary made today. I assure the ethnic minorities that we are pledged to those commitments. Given success at the next general election, we shall carry them out. 6 pm

Mr. Warren Hawksley: I have a constituency interest in the problems of immigration. There are about 4,000 immigrants in my area, but before becoming the hon. Member for The Wrekin, I fought the constituency of Wolverhampton, North-East on two occasions, so I have some insight into the problems that we are debating.
In discussing this issue, we should at the outset thank the Minister and the officials of his Department for the way in which these matters are dealt with. The immigration officers, particularly at Heathrow No. 3 terminal also


deserve our thanks. It is my experience, when taking up cases with them, that they are extremely helpful. They do a difficult job to the best of their ability.
I welcome hon. Members being involved in these issues and I sympathise with my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Lawler) who said that he did not welcome being woken up during the night to have to deal with such problems. The Minister was right to say that all the aeroplanes seem to arrive at the same time. Indeed, they all seem to arrive during bank holidays. Problems seem to arise at inconvenient times.
I hold two strong views on this issue. First, immigration should be restricted more than it is at present. Considering that we live in a crowded island and have 3 million unemployed, we should take a stronger, rather than a weaker, line. Secondly, in terms of the race industry, as I call it, the report of the Commission for Racial Equality does more harm than good. Using the law, bullying and threatening does not make anybody love his or her neighbour. Indeed, the indigenous population can think that they are becoming second-class citizens. Such action is harmful to race relations.
What was the cost of the report? It seems to go beyond the ambit of what I expected the CRE to do. The bias of the report could result in it being used as a nail in the coffin of the commission, a body which costs £10 million of taxpayers' money every year. I hope that we shall see, as a result of the report, a slashing of its budget.
The report implies, wrongly, that good race relations can be brought about by allowing in large numbers of immigrants or by being soft on illegal immigrants and overstayers. That is not true. Many immigrants in my constituency with whom I have spoken support my immigration views. They want no additional protection under the law beyond that given to the indigenous population, and they do not want illegal immigrants to be let off. They want them found and returned to their countries of origin. They believe that that is the way forward if we are to have harmony, and they are right.
I recently dealt with a case which the Minister may recall. The immigration authorities suddenly arrested the local imam from the mosque in my constituency. When I investigated the case, he admitted that, under another name, he had been deported by the last Labour Home Secretary and that in yet another name he had tried to re-enter the country. He then turned up in Telford as the local imam. It was a fascinating case because he was apprehended not by the police but by his own community. Members of the mosque made a complaint to the immigration authorities about him being an illegal immigrant.
That shows how important it is to apprehend illegal immigrants and overstayers. The Government are wrong to step back slightly. They should use the police to carry out that type of work. The Government should use all agencies to enforce the law because better race relations are brought about by the enforcement of the law and by returning illegal immigrants and overstayers.

Ms. Clare Short: Has the hon. Gentleman read the CRE report that he denounces so roundly? Is he aware that it makes no reference to illegal immigrants and does not appeal for such immigrants to be given additional rights? It appeals for the decent treatment of people who, in theory, have the right to visit their families, to marry or

to join their families here. He denounces the report but speaks only of illegal immigrants, when the report is not about that issue.

Mr. Hawksley: The hon. Lady appears not to have read the report. The recommendation at page 108 is clear:
The interests of race and community relations should weigh heavily on the planning and conduct of large-scale action carried out to trace overstayers and illegal entrants.
I am not saying that the report is desirable. Recommendation 50 suggests that we should go soft on catching illegal immigrants and overstayers.

Mr. Janner: It is unfair on the commission for the hon. Gentleman to read only those parts of a passage that suit his case. At page 108, the report adds:
In saying this, we are not seeking to protect people who enter or remain in the United Kingdom illegally from discovery or from other adverse consequences of their actions. Why is the hon. Gentleman trying to mislead the House about the views of the CRE?

Mr. Hawksley: I was answering the intervention of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) who claimed that the report did not mention illegal immigrants and overstayers. I showed that it did.

Ms. Clare Short: rose —

Mr. Hawksley: I will not give way to the hon. Lady again because time is limited and Mr. Speaker has urged us to be as brief as possible.
I have shown the hon. Lady where the report deals with these issues, even though, in my view, the report is wrong. It is also wrong to try to exclude pressure-to-emigrate countries from special attention because it is realistic for the Government to explain that that is where the problems originate. It is logical, therefore, that we should put our resources into trying to catch those who are defying the law.
Two points have arisen in cases that I have taken up. Immigration officers might take more notice of those who, on coming in, are particularly frightened and nervous. An example of such a person came to my attention last weekend. An Indian arrived and claimed to be married. Everybody knew that he was not married—

Ms. Clare Short: Everybody?

Mr. Hawksley: —and when challenged, he said that the only reason why he had said he was married was that a fellow passenger on the plane had told him, "If you have any problems with immigration control, do not worry. Just say you are married and you will get in." He did that, and was led into great difficulty as a result. Hon. Members should do more to explain, particularly to the sponsors, that they must ensure that those who are coming as visitors and immigrants must be totally honest and not give answers which they think the immigration officers want to hear.
The second problem is that of language. There are occasions when interpreters are not sufficiently expert. I do not have a strong view on the question whether tape recorders should be used, but we should ensure that facilities are provided which enable interpreters to respond to all the dialects with which they are likely to come into contact.
When something goes wrong and there is trouble with visitors or immigrants, are the respective Members of Parliament informed of developments? I ask that because in the six years that I have been a Member of Parliament


there has been only one occasion when the Home Office told me that someone, whose case I had taken up, had absconded and disappeared. I got hold of the sponsor and within 24 hours he had frogmarched the person down to the police station. In fact, he had escaped from detention. I hope that the Department advises the Member of Parliament who has made representations when a case goes wrong, and whether the person overstays or, if called back, does not appear. It would be helpful to us to have that information.
The present procedures are right. The way forward is to support them. The report should be ignored, and we should go forward supporting the Government's proposals, which are fair and will lead to better race relations all around.

Several Hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call the next speaker it may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Opposition Front Bench spokesman will seek to catch my eye at 6.40 pm. There have been some rather long speeches. I ask those who follow to be brief.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) spoke of the two great parties, and the increase in the number of people in immigrant communities who are moving towards being natural Tory voters. It rang a little hollow on a day when one of the parties to which I presume he was referring is lying third behind the other two in the opinion polls. I am forced to the conclusion that the two great parties that the hon. Gentleman talked about exclude the Conservatives.
I approach the debate on the following premise. In the community that is the United Kingdom, or in the community of a constituency—that applies to almost everybody's constituency, certainly my own of Southwark and Bermondsey just over the river—the majority of people are white and are not immigrants. Yet almost every single case that comes before us, which raises questions of immigration procedures, concerns someone from Asia, Africa or the Caribbean—certainly someone who is not white — who has to go to his family's Member of Parliament so that the matter may be considered.
The history so far of my relatively short time in the House shows that, with one or two exceptions only, it is clear that there is injustice, discrimination and unfair and unjustifiable treatment primarily to immigrants from the poorest Commonwealth and other countries, and primarily to communities that are black or brown—the Asian or African communities.
Nobody has advocated that controls should not be required. The CRE report does not suggest that for a moment. It is amazing to hear the sort of comment that we heard from the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Hawksley). He showed his true colours, arguing that the CRE should be abolished. He believes that race equality in Britain is now so perfect that no watchdog body which is independent of Government is required to stand up for the minority ethnic communities. That is an appalling position to take up when there is blatant discrimination against them on every day of every week and every year.

Ms. Clare Short: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: Let me press on. The hon. Lady might get a chance to speak in a second.

Ms. Short: No chance.

Mr. Hughes: The next thing that is clear is that the report was born because there was a need for an objective report. It was a good and thorough piece of work, and in no way produced conclusions that are extremist, unreasonable or unsupported. To argue that the Government should not be disposed to accept what is proposed as a set of recommendations, and for the Government to try to resist what is in every way a reasonable set of proposals is a wholly unacceptable attitude.
I have to say this, and Labour Members have confirmed it. Governments of both parties have not lived up to their pledges. In the interests of the immigrant communities, I hope that in future Governments will live up to the pledges that they make. However, as long as they confuse immigration laws with nationality, that will never be possible. The starting point for putting right what is wrong is getting our law on nationality into good order and dealing with immigration controls in the way that was intended.
There is no reason why treatment of the community of people who are our European neighbours and partners, and their families and relatives, with their rights to bring their families in and out of this country, should not be the same as for the community of people who are our Commonwealth partners. There is an illogicality in believing that the community that has been established longer should be treated less favourably than the Community to which we have given access more recently.
The report argues clearly that people who come here as immigrants, whether as visitors, to join their families or, in the normal course of events, to settle here, should be treated as individuals with rights, and fairly and decently. They should be treated free of bias, and in a way that takes into account where they come from, but does not determine their treatment. They should not be treated in a stereotyped manner because they come from Dhaka, Bangladesh, India, Sri Lanka, or because they are Tamils, and so on, of which there is evidence. It is unacceptable for the presumption often to be that if somebody happens to be unable to speak English and comes from a certain country, and cannot easily present his case, he should get a much less fair deal than many others who come to our ports of entry.
As the commission rightly says, at the end of the day there must be discretion by the Government. However, my colleagues and I entirely support the CRE's conclusion that that discretion must be limited as far as possible, and that
the more clear-cut the expression of rights in the rules is, and the less hedged about with provisos and limitations they are, the better.
People need to have rights and to know what the rights are.
The other essential point is that, if unfair discrimination is to be avoided, decisions about individuals should not be prejudiced by judgments about the groups of which they are members or with which they are associated, even if those judgments appear well founded. It is unfair to presume that people are bogus or dishonest applicants. As every hon. Member who has argued this case has said—even those from the right of the political spectrum—the number of people who come here and abuse their


entitlement is minuscule. In the two and a quarter years since I have been in the House, I have heard of only one such person. The matter came up last Friday at my advice centre. The person to whom I wrote asking whether he could help me find a woman who had gone to ground said that he and his relatives were going out twice daily to try to ensure that she was returned home. Those people know that what they do reflects on their community. In the interests of good race relations, they want to make sure that others appreciate the diversity of races, and respect them, and do not regard them as abusers of the law and the rules.
The primary purpose rule has been condemned. It has been proved to be ludicrous on many occasions. There is the case of the British wife and the Moroccan husband, which the Minister knows. She tried almost-everything to try to show that the primary purpose of getting married was not just to get him into this country, but they wanted to get married because they loved each other. How can she prove that, when at the same time the rules are reversed, as it were, when a British husband is trying to get his foreign wife into this country. Next Tuesday the European Court of Human Rights should make a judgment that will condemn the Government yet again for being inconsistent and discriminatory on grounds of sex. The court will say that the Government have to change the law. I hope that they will respond much more quickly than the Home Office normally does when, yet again, it has been found to be at fault. The sooner we have a Bill of Rights, the less regularly will we have such ludicrous discrimination.
That case brought one other thing to light. It brought to light an example — there are many — of the most appalling discriminatory treatment by a member of the Home Office staff. Of course, it does not happen every day, and I do not tar everyone with the same brush. However, allegations were made that that official said things such as, "I do not like north Africans," and, "I do not like your husband."
It has also now been accepted by the Home Office that the person's attitude, and the way in which his investigation was carried out, was "indiscreet and over-zealous".
Those words were used by someone in the Home Office. Such an attitude is unacceptable. For as long as the immigration service includes officials who behave in that way, is it surprising that the immigrant communities feel that they are not treated fairly? Is it surprising that we complain when a British woman who is married to a Turk has her house visited in the middle of the night by officials to ascertain whether she is living with her husband? Is that the type of treatment that we believe reflects the civilised democracy to which we lay so regular a claim? Is it fair that the treatment of a man who wants to marry someone from, say, Mauritius is much less good than if each of the partners was in that country when they first decided to marry? In every case, those who come, whether as students or visitors, abide by the rules. They come here for good reasons. [Interruption.] In nearly every case they are let in only because Members of Parliament are telephoned about the matter and decide to make representations. By the time those representations have been made and considered, the two or three-week holiday has passed or the study visit has been achieved.
Post-entry controls work in an unfair and discriminatory manner. One of my constituents was arrested and held for a considerable time because the officials believed that

he was his brother. They did not bother to check the details accurately at the beginning of the case to discover that the two people lived at different addresses. It is not right that one community should have this type of specific control when other communities would in no way accept that control.
The report is about good relations. The Minister talks about exercising discretion. Take the case of a woman who was admitted to Britain as a visitor and married a man. who had a right to be here, who deserted her, leaving with two children who had been born and brought up here. She lives in a community which is almost entirely white, as parts of my constituency in Rotherhithe are, which says, "In the interests of a good community, this Ugandan lady should not be sent home." Yet, so far at least, the discretion of the Home Office has not been exercised in favour of that family.
The sooner we respect the rights of the less privileged to have equal treatment and realise that the comments of other people should be listened to seriously and with interest, the better. I hope that the Home Office will realise that the sooner it is regarded as the upholder of the rights and privileges of all citizens, and not just those best able to argue for themselves, the better.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: The saddest aspect of this subject is that, unless one follows current convention and swallows without question the endless outpourings of the race relations industry, one is, at best, bombarded with unpleasant epithets and, at worst, one fears for family and self.
There is a large ethnic minority in my constituency, and our city of Nottingham is multi-origin, multinational and multi-creed. It is a great and colourful city. It has problems with sections of some—I stress the word "some"—of those minority groups. Those troubles lie with only a minority of a minority and they must not be allowed to be blown up out of all proportion. In a thoughtful article, Mr. Tom Hastie, a former ILEA officer, said:
The level of alleged racism in any given society will vary in direct proportion to the number of people handsomely paid to find it.
Sadly, that is our experience in Nottingham where such people revel in the inanimate title of "chair".
We heard from the Opposition Front Bench the most cynical manipulation of human expectations for purely party political purposes — regardless of the damage to general harmony or to the welfare of the minority communities. Saddest of all is the distress that is caused to those within the minority communities who seek only to be part of, to contribute to and to be accepted by the host community.

Mr. Janner: Host?

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: The host community.
The debate should be not on the law as it is but on how it is applied and whether it is fairly applied. I believe that, in general, the people charged with applying the law try to be fair. But they, too, are human beings.I doubt whether any hon. Member, whatever the side of the House from which he speaks, would do an immigration officer's job day in day out without making an error and without tapping pencils on desks. They are, indeed, human beings.
There was much of merit in the report. I share the views of colleagues who urge Ministers not to dismiss it in its


entirety. Let us take from that report that which is good. Equally, there is much in the report that I beg to question. From my experience in Nottingham, I cannot understand why the report referred to "no contact" with Inland Revenue. The Inland Revenue has ready access to the rest of us. It seems perfectly reasonable to ask for the names of children and family trees. The sooner we obtain the truth about a case, the better.
I have been asked, "Please, Mr. Brandon-Bravo, I would like a three-month holiday." On application to the Minister, that three-month holiday has been granted, only for me to receive, eight or nine weeks later, the request, "May I have another six months?" These matters cause doubt and concern, and it is not unreasonable for people to be suspicious.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) asked three questions as though, in some way, none of us has ever been faced with the problem of dealing with sham marriages. I refer the right hon. Gentleman to page 183 of the report.
In annex B the immigration service rightly concludes:
There is no reason to believe that the incidence of evasion will decrease to any marked extent, for while the pressure to emigrate for economic reasons from Third World countries remains, developed countries will continue to be subjected to determined efforts at settlement by unentitled potential immigrants.
That is not an unreasonable statement, and we cannot simply ignore it.
On Tuesday there was a mass lobby in Parliament which was supported by the Opposition parties. I do not believe that the total abolition of our immigration laws would be in the best interests of the population as a whole.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: We never said that.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I know that it is not in the interests of our minority communities either.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: As hon. Members know, I am involved, perhaps more than any other hon. Member, in immigration questions. The Minister must be a little weary of writing my name almost daily. I have said to the hon. and learned Gentleman that I have always regarded the job of immigration Minister as a tough job, whatever the Government. The Minister must not just allay the fears of one section of the Conservative party. Conservative Members are not here in great numbers but, on the equality of spouses, they have shown themselves in previous debates to be sexist and anti-women's rights. That is the way in which they have addressed the problem concerning the unity of the sexes — whether a woman may decide. This principle is enshrined in the European convention on human rights. The changes in the rules are due more to that convention than to the magnanimity of the Minister of State or the Prime Minister. It was observed that there were prima facie cases of a contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights. In order to put that right, there has been a reversion — in a fashion — to the concept of the equality of the spouses. As a result, a number of people have entered the country.
I asked on one occasion whether priority would be given to husbands as a result. The question of the primary purpose of the union was less difficult to answer in such

cases, especially when children had been produced. A wife who was living here might well have met her mate on a visit overseas. Those who work for British Airways or Air India find it easy to obtain cheap flights back to the land of their parents or grandparents, and unions may be made in that way. In my view, there is a strong movement away from the old-fashioned concept of the arranged marriage. It is a rule that the couple are required to have met each other before marriage, but there is evidence of blockage in cases where there has been considerable correspondence between the male and the female.
The Minister says, quite fairly, that this debate will have some bearing on the Home Secretary's response to the CRE's report. The CRE is closely involved with the matter, and I hope that the Minister will listen to the views expressed on both sides of the House. I have never approached this question in a partisan way. I have written a book on the question and I was involved some years back with the Race Relations and Immigration Sub-Committee. The Committee struggled to achieve unanimity. My prime purpose at that time was to take the question out of the cockpit of party antagonism.
The Minister is right. There has been no fundamental difference on the matter. I ask the Minister to take a cool look at the matter. He is charged with responsibility not only for the administration of the immigration rules, but for race relations. The Minister has made it clear that he does not wholly agree with the report—some people are sceptical about some of the phrases used in it—but he must take note of the report and the attitude of the United Kingdom immigration advisory service, which is funded by the Home Office to advise people in this country and overseas on their lawful rights.
The CRE was set up under the Labour Government's Race Relations Act 1976. The two parties were united about the basic ideas in the Act, although there were some differences. Lord Whitelaw, who was then Home Secretary, accepted many of the arguments put forward by the Opposition. The cut and thrust of debate led to the establishment of a more civilised system.
The Minister achieves nothing when he says how harsh the Labour Administration could be. He is, of course, quite right. One has only to look at the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968 which was a forerunner of later things. One has only to look at the attitude of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) at that time towards the then Minister of State, Mr. Alex Lyon. Mr. Lyon was sacked. I protested about that sacking. I thought that Mr. Lyon had shown a decent and humanitarian attitude towards black and brown people in this country. He seemed to be taking an objective view and acting in a proper way, and was most approachable. I have not had any difficulty in gaining access to the present Minister of State either. I do not wish to dub him a racialist, as he has been called. That is no way to achieve the shift of attitude that the bulk of the House — including a number of hon. Members who are not present this evening—seems to desire.

Mr. Pavitt: I too have been involved with this issue over the past 25 years. The first director of the CRE, Mr. David Lane, was one of the best of traditional Tories in the Macmillan-Macleod line. The Conservative Government have always been antagonistic towards the CRE, and Mr. Lane was given a rough ride by the Tories.

Mr. Bidwell: The CRE cares and worries about ethnic minority rights and related questions nearly all the time, and it would be fair to assume that it would respond in a very sympathetic and penetrating way. The report shows that it has done so. I would not say that I agreed with every syllable of the report, but the Minister should not ignore the grave disquiet that it exhibits about the racial minorities.
The Minister referred to adding to the numbers administering the rules. He must do better than that. There is undoubtedly an inbuilt delay system. When I went overseas with the Sub-Committee, I asked immigration controllers in all three countries in the Indian subcontinent about these matters and they frankly agreed that the system is designed so that people should only trickle through. That is not surprising. The inbuilt delay system was attendant upon the 1968 Act. British passport holders were excluded from being considered for immediate admission. That situation still exists.
The report of that Sub-Committee is well worth studying. We recommended speeding up the interviewing system. We suggested that British officers should be sent to the pocket area of migration in Bangladesh, south of Bombay, to deal with the Gujarati question and to Jullunder, where many of the settlers in my constituency have come from. That immigration in my constituency caused some initial alarm, but many friendships have since been formed, and there is much mutual concern and care among the communities.
The Minister should talk to the second and third generation—the babies of the babies—in order to get at the guts of the matter. There is a language difficulty, but that is what the Minister should do, and he should make some more substantial proposals than those that we have heard today.

Ms. Clare Short: I am grateful for the chance to speak, but somewhat flummoxed by the shortness of the time available to me.
The CRE has done a fine job in giving all the details of the discriminatory practices that, as all hon. Members who represent substantial black communities know, are encountered from day to day by members of those communities when they ask family members to stay with them or to take care of their elderly parents in their dying years. One of the most disgraceful and disreputable elements of our immigration control system is that people are not allowed to bring their elderly mothers, or fathers — perhaps aged over 70 — to live with them, even though they have the necessary housing and income. No one can say that this is pressure-to-immigrate, or that such people will take jobs or anything else, but we do not allow them entry.
The other disgraceful operation of our immigration control is the refusal to allow our Asian women the same rights to marry whom they wish as our white women. The operation of the primary purpose rule is deliberately, continually and crudely racist. It removes some rights from Asian women, many of whom I have met and talked to in my constituency. Many of these women have been to the subcontinent and met men whom they have decided they wanted to marry. They have married there and stayed for a year, thinking that they would wait together in the year-long queue before the interview, after which they would come hack to the United Kingdom together.
In a number of cases, the women have found themselves pregnant and come home—as they always say—for decent health care for their baby. Then. the Minister's immigration officials, applying the rule that he defends so passionately, have refused the husbands the right to come to join wives in the United Kingdom. In Ladywood alone, 12 children of such marriages have never seen their father. That is a shame and a blot, and, from a party that denounces countries such as the Soviet Union because of its treatment of families and its separation of family members, it is extremely hypocritical.
The Minister's pressure-to-immigrate argument is a deep insult to the black communities of Britain. He looks at the world and suggests that anybody who comes to Britain from France, America or Canada, for example, will be authentic, decent and properly qualified. However, anybody who seeks to come here from a poorer country, the Third world or a developing country is somehow disreputable. He looks at the whole group, and, whatever the individual circumstances of the family or their entitlement, treats them as second-class applicants. He assumes that a person who is married to someone from India has lesser rights than a person who is married to someone who comes from America. The same is true about visitors and elderly parents.
This is a disgraceful and disreputable argument. Superficially, it sounds acceptable, but in practice it is wrong. Many poor countries have no contact with Britain, and no pressure to emigrate here. Not many people from China, for example, wish to come to Britain. People do not wish to come here from all over India or from all over Bangladesh. Those who want to come are relatives of people who came legally to Britain when Britain wanted workers, and they want to join their families as wives and children, as elderly parents or married partners. To treat all of them as inferior applicants because the country from which they have originated is poor is racist in the extreme, and deeply unacceptable.
The Minister constantly compares his record with that of the Labour Government. However, everyone in the Government of which he is a member disdains and rejects the economic policies of previous Conservative Governments. None of us would be in politics if we thought that everything that had been done in the past was perfect. The record of Labour and Conservative Governments has not been identical. The Conservative party has always had a much more deeply racist element within it, which has called much more passionately — [Interruption.] There is no doubt about it, and Conservative Members know it, and some members of that element have participated in the debate tonight. We saw it in the revolt on the primary purpose rule in 1983. The records of which party passed what legislation are different.
My party's record is deeply blemished and not good enough. We have had a major argument within the party about that and we have now committed ourselves, through our conference and through our Front Bench spokesmen, both the present one and the previous one, to improve on our record. We mean it, and we shall do it. We are ashamed of the things that we did wrong in the past and we shall make sure that we do better next time.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: I congratulate the CRE on its excellent report, professionally carried out, and with


conclusions that are important to all hon. Members and the people. It is a tribute to the CRE that such a high standard of work has come from it. It is no wonder, given the Minister's attitudes, that his Department did its best to stifle the report before it got started. We know the history of the legal attempts made by the Government to prevent the CRE from continuing with the report.
The report is limited in scope and moderate in its language and conclusion—after all, it talks only about administrative improvements in the procedures. If every recommendation were to be accepted, there would be no new immigration commitment. Some hon. Members seem not to be aware of that, so I shall repeat it. Every recommendation in the report added together would not represent a single new immigration commitment.
What we need, and what we have the right to ask for, is a detailed response by the Minister to each and every one of the report's recommendations. We have had the odd one turned down, a comment about one or two suggesting a possibly sympathetic response and nothing much about the rest of it. The Minister owes it to the people who have put a lot of work into the report, to Members of Parliament and to the country as a whole, to say what he and his Department think of each of those recommendations.
The Minister, both today and in speeches made outside the House, has not denied any of the evidence in the report of maladministration in immigration procedures, of rudeness to applicants or of racial discrimination against people who have had dealings with ECOs or immigration officers. He said that he had priced the immigration implications of something that I had said on a previous occasion and not in the context of the report. If the Minister's attitude is to say that principles do not matter, and he will look simply at the numbers involved before making any decisions, that suggests that his policy is even more squalid than most of us had thought.
I have a word of welcome for three things that the Minister said. He suggested that he agreed with the recommendation that there should be some training for new ECOs. He said that there is a possibility that he will consider publicising instructions to ECOs and that he would make a small temporary increase in the number of ECOs in Dhaka and Bangladesh.
However, the Minister did not say whether he accepted the key point on the report, which has already been referred to by my hon. Friends, but which I shall quote again. The report says:
it is far worse wrongly to refuse a genuine applicant than to admit a bogus one; and it is far worse to delay the exercise of their rights by genuine applicants than to allow a bogus applicant through the net in efforts to avoid delays.
A great deal hangs on the Minister's answer to the question whether he accepts that.
Much of the thrust of the report concerns the manner in which interviews are carried out, with people seeking to exercise their rights under immigration rules and Acts. There was one telling quotation from an ECO who said, either to the interviewer or in written evidence:
Ask the sponsor if he can explain the gap in his child-fathering between (first child) and (second child). It was during this period that he first went to the UK, but he made a visit back to Bangladesh … yet no children were born as a result of that visit.
The implication of that statement is that the sex lives of these people are relevant to whether they are entitled to

come to this country. The point seems to be whether sex was taking place between the couple because, if it was not, there was a doubt as to whether the wife had a right to join her husband over here. That is a shameful approach, which the Minister should repudiate without question, and I hope he will do so.
Attention has been paid by my hon. Friends to the interviewing of people under the primary purpose rule. I do not want to go through the whole argument but entry clearance officers are asking questions about the motives for marriage of people who wish to come together in this country. I question whether any couple subject to that sort of scrutiny could produce the answers every time which would allow an ECO to agree to entry. ECOs are not qualified to pry into marriages, yet the primary purpose rule seems to be an excuse for them to do so.

Mr. Nellist: rose —

Mr. Dubs: A couple of years ago when I was on a visit with a Select Committee I sat in on some interviews. Let me tell the Minister about one line of questioning. A woman whose husband was here was being questioned. She was asked, "When did your husband last visit you?" She answered, "About a year and a half ago." The next question was, "When he last visited you how many people were in the compound when he arrived?" I had been in a compound near Sylhet the day before and I could not remember how many people had been there when I arrived. That woman, who came from a culture not as obsessed as we are with times, dates, places and numbers, must have found that a very difficult question. The reason for her being asked the question was that other Home Office officials here could ask her husband the same question and then check to see whether the answers were identical.
That type of questioning is unprincipled and shameful, and should be no part of our procedures. That is why I deeply regret that the Minister or one of his colleagues has said that there is no question of having a tape recording of the interviews. Tape recordings would provide a basic safeguard for what is being done in our name at interviews in Dhaka, Islamabad and elsewhere.

Mr. Nellist: On my hon. Friend's second point about the primary purpose rule, does he not agree that, apart from the legislation with regard to prevention of terrorism, under no other British legislation is a person presumed to be guilty with the obligation to prove himself innocent? The reverse is always true, supposedly, in British courts. When an entry clearance officer is making a decision under the primary purpose rule the assumption is that the marriage is not genuine, and the couple have to prove themselves innocent. Is that not so?

Mr. Dubs: I agree with my hon. Friend that the burden of proof is put on the applicant in a way that would be unacceptable in courts in this country. It is unacceptable to the majority of people here, especially when it is explained to them what is being done in our name.
When the report first came out, the Minister laid great emphasis on what he called the concept of pressure to emigrate. That is a circular argument. If the Home Office decides that there are certain countries from which there is no pressure to emigrate, those countries are not under the same scrutiny, and there is no problem about them. Since the Home Office decided that the West Indies was


not in the category of pressure to emigrate, that argument has not applied to Jamaica, Guyana and other parts of the West Indies. Because the Minister and his officials start from different assumptions in relation to other countries, they examine more closely what is going on there and arrive at different conclusions.
One has only to consider the figures quoted in the report for refusals of visitors. I was at Heathrow a couple of Saturdays ago and every person who was stopped that morning was non-white. That may have been coincidence, but the figures in the report bear it out. The refusal rates for visitors are 1 in 44 for Ghanaians, 1 in 80 for Pakistanis, 1 in 2,800 for Americans and 1 in 4,300 for Australians.
Other hon. Members have quoted racial stereotypes from the report. It is said that Moroccans from immigrant areas seem to be both simple and cunning. There are stereotypes about Ghanaians and Nigerians and about what people look like. We have seen the comment in the report:
I want to do this re-interview myself. Hands off. This must be this year's strongest refusal".
Has the Minister taken any action about officials representing his Department who take such an attitude?
My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has already quoted the secret directive which says clearly — as the Minister has admitted—that delays and bureaucratic procedures are an attempt to regulate the flow of immigrants. I hope he will publish that directive in full. I am glad that the Minister was candid enough to repudiate what the Home Secretary said at a conference in Manchester recently, and honest enough to say that these are deliberate delays and that the method is being used in this way.

Mr. Waddington: rose —

Mr. Dubs: I would rather not give way at the moment because I have one other point to make.
The Minister has used statistics incorrectly. The evidence is that in new Delhi the waiting time when the Labour Government left office was six months. Now it is 12 months. The waiting time in Bombay is not what the Minister said. According to the Hansard of the House of Lords of 24 May 1979, the queue for main settlement in Bombay was four and a quarter months in March 1979. The evidence is that when the Labour Government left office there were in Dhaka 15 ECOs, with two additional officers for seasonal relief. The number of ECOs is the same now.
Comparing 1977–79 with the period since then, the number of applications has gone down from 24,500 per year to 16,000. The number of applications processed in the last two years of the Labour Government was nearly 28,000 per year. It is now just over 19,000. In other words, efficiency is lacking. Far fewer applications are being processed. The Government's record is shameful. What is being done on our behalf is a disgrace to the name of Britain. I was not a Member of Parliament in 1977–79 but I criticised the record of the Labour Government. However, their record was a great deal better than the record of this Government. I say bluntly and without equivocation that if my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton and I have the privilege of occupying the equivalent posts in the next Labour Government we will make certain that the promises and commitments we have entered into will be kept.

Mr. Waddington: rose —

Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you advise me on a matter of procedure? Am I right in understanding that if the Government do not move the closure motion on this debate before 7 o'clock we will automatically discuss the private business in regard to the GLC which is set down for 7 o'clock and then, should that debate not take the full three hours allocated to it, we can return to this debate? I have 10,000 people who wish to be represented in the debate. Other hon. Members wish to discuss the matter again after the GLC business. Will that be the procedure unless the Tory Government decide to close the debate?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has got it absolutely right. If the closure is not moved and if the private business folds up before 10 o'clock we will come back to this business.

Mr. Harry Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of our debate on the Interception of Communications Bill—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House is not dealing with that Bill.

Mr. Cohen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of that, is the Minister making policy on his feet when he talks about the question—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That has nothing to do with the matter.

Mr. Norman Hogg: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That this House do now adjourn:—

The House divided: Ayes 140, Noes 219.

Division No. 223]
[7.2 pm


AYES


Ashdown, Paddy
Crowther, Stan


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cunningham, Dr John


Barnett, Guy
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)


Beith, A. J.
Deakins, Eric


Bell, Stuart
Dewar, Donald


Bermingham, Gerald
Dixon, Donald


Bidwell, Sydney
Dobson, Frank


Blair, Anthony
Dormand, Jack


Boyes, Roland
Dubs, Alfred


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Duffy, A. E. P.


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Eadie, Alex


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Eastham, Ken


Bruce, Malcolm
Fatchett, Derek


Buchan, Norman
Faulds, Andrew


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Canavan, Dennis
Fisher, Mark


Cartwright, John
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Forrester, John


Clarke, Thomas
Foster, Derek


Clay, Robert
Foulkes, George


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Cohen, Harry
Garrett, W. E.


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
George, Bruce


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Godman, Dr Norman


Corbyn, Jeremy
Golding, John


Cowans, Harry
Gould, Bryan


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Craigen, J. M.
Harman, Ms Harriet

Greater London Council (General Powers) Bill (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Speaker: I have selected for debate with the Second Reading instruction No. 1—
That it he an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to insert a clause preserving any pre-existing rights of succession vested in street traders and that, subject to such rights, any vacancies for street trading licences be advertised—
and instruction No. 4—
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to leave out Part V. Clause 54 and Schedule 2.

Mr. Tony Banks: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
It falls to me to move the Second Reading of the Bill, which is not a task I undertake with great relish. Perhaps I can make a few points by way of preamble. First, it should be noted that I am the first chairman of the GLC to move such a Bill in the House, and I trust that I shall not be the last.

Mr. Eric Forth: You will.

Mr. Banks: Although the Greater London council is officially the promoter of the Bill, it is acting only as an agent, so hon. Members should direct their barbs not at me, but through me to the boroughs which introduced the Bill. The GLC has a direct link only with clauses 3 and 4. All other clauses have been inserted at the request of the London boroughs by the Association of London Authorities and the London Boroughs Association.
Under the terms of the Local Government Bill being discussed in another place, this could be the last Greater London Council (General Powers) Bill. If it is, the London boroughs will lose an efficient and convenient method of promoting legislation. Indeed, clause 85 of the Local Government Bill removes the effective realisation of Londonwide legislation. If that Bill becomes law, it is likely that the House will be presented with a hotch-potch of legislation promoted by anyone or any combination of 33 London boroughs. Clearly, the Government are no more interested in the efficient promotion of private Bills than they are in the efficient local government of London.
Most of the Bill is non-contentious. Hon. Members will have received a letter from the head of the GLC's administrative, law and parliamentary branch setting out in clear detail its provisions. Therefore, I shall mention those clauses only briefly. Clause 3 seeks powers to make a charge for dealing with applications for varying the terms, conditions or restrictions to existing entertainment licences. Clause 4 seeks new powers to serve a notice on each property owner and occupier on whose land adopted flood defences are situated to incorporate the adopted features into the flood defences of London so that alterations may be controlled. There are rights of appeal under the clause, and payment of compensation where appropriate. The GLC and its predecessor authority, the London county council, have done excellent work in flood prevention in London, and the Thames barrier is a unique technological tribute to both authorities.
Clauses 5 to 9 were inserted at the request of the LBA, supported by the ALA, and are designed to help to prevent footway collapse in London's streets, which include many vaults and cellars. Unfortunately, this is happening too often now as heavier and heavier lorries use our streets. 
Clause 10 seeks to exempt from the licensing codes that control massage establishments premises which are run —[Interruption.] I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I must stand somewhere else, because it is a little difficult to concentrate in view of what appear to be interesting conversations being held just below the Gangway. Clause 10 seeks to exempt from the licensing codes that control massage establishments premises that are run by persons registered under the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act 1960 or by registered medical practitioners. Since the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1984, the LBA arid the ALA have accepted that premises used by members of bodies which specify qualifications and require their members to observe professional standards for the practice of chiropractic, osteopathy, naturopathy or acupuncture should also be exempted, and clause 10 provides that.
As for clause 11, the London Boroughs Association, primarily at the prompting of Westminster council, seeks to make amendments to schedule 3 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 which relates to the licensing of sex establishments. I understand that the Home Office has objected. Rather belatedly, the London boroughs have submitted evidence to the Home Office to justify the provisions contained in the clause. I believe that that evidence will convince the Ministers. If not, they will make their feelings known in Committee.
The Greater London council is not involved in this part of the Bill and has no evidence to offer in support of the boroughs. Clause 11 seeks to establish control over the sex-related use of premises—for example, sex encounter establishments. These are establishments with which I am sure neither you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, nor I am acquainted. Clause 11 brings them within the provisions of schedule 3 to the 1982 Act. I shall leave hon. Members to read in the Bill the definitions of a sex encounter establishment. Because of my sheltered upbringing 1 could not bring myself to read them.
Secondly, the 1982 Act referred to premises which were involved "to a significant degree" in the selling or hiring of sex articles. The definition of "to a significant degree" has led to a considerable amount of argument, mostly between lawyers, at great expense to the ratepayers. One thinks of bookshops and video shops which sell some sex articles but which at the moment are able to avoid control under schedule 3 to the 1982 Act. The London boroughs wish to delete "to a significant degree" and substitute "includes the" in order to provide for the control of shops selling some sex articles.
Thirdly, the London boroughs want, quite rightly, to charge licensing fees in order to cover the reasonable cost of inspecting sex premises. Fourthly, the boroughs wish to have the same powers of forfeiture and seizure of apparatus and equipment — the mind boggles at that point — under schedule 3 to the 1982 Act as are currently provided under the Cinematograph Acts. Fifthly, the boroughs seek to allow a sex establishment to continue only until a licence determination has been made but not until an appeal has been completed. Hon. Members will be delighted to know that part IV will be withdrawn. If the House gives a Second Reading to the Bill, the necessary amendments will be included in the filled-up Bill to be placed before the Committee. A working party has been set up to examine the nature of part IV. I hope that it will produce an agreed report at a later stage.
I now turn to part V, about which hon. Members have made representations to me. It deals with the regulation of street trading. I spent a little time upon describing the earlier parts of the Bill in order to demonstrate that it contains much that is worthy and commendable. However, part V has led to controversy. Market traders have expressed considerable opposition to it. I congratulate their organisations upon their assiduous campaigning. The London boroughs have made a very good case for the rationalisation of the street trading laws. If one looks at schedule 2 to the Bill, one sees there is a widely different pattern of street trading regulations throughout London. Therefore, some conformity in the regulations is necessary.

Mr. John Gorst: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared at a later stage, if the Bill is given a Second Reading, to make amendments in order to cover the arguments and representations which have been made? This would help hon. Members to know what the prospects at a later stage might be.

Mr. Banks: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I hope to be able to answer on behalf of the sponsors most of the objections that have been raised by right hon. and hon. Members. This is a matter upon which the House will wish to express a view. I shall listen very carefully to hon. Members. I have full authority to give assurances before Committee. This is one of those rare opportunities when the House can influence legislation in a real way, perhaps by means of the strength of the arguments advanced by hon. Members.
As I have already pointed out, part V is highly contentious and a number of representations have been made. As a result of the detailed discussions I have had with my hon. Friends the Members for Norwood (Mr. Fraser), for Peckham (Ms. Harman), for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) and with traders in my own borough, Newham, I can signify on behalf of the sponsors their acceptance of the first instruction relating to the rights of inheritance and advertising. It seems to us to be perfectly reasonable that there should be a right of inheritance over market trading. The necessary amendments will be tabled in Committee. The first instruction is therefore acceptable.

Mr. John Wheeler: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises that it is very important for him to set out, for the convenience of the House, the extent of the inheritance provisions.

Mr. Banks: I am accepting on behalf of the sponsors the first instruction on the Order Paper. There will be further discussions between the representatives of the market traders and the boroughs to secure an acceptable form of wording before Committee and they will take place in the light of the first instruction. It is not for me to set out the extent of those provisions. It is for the representatives of the boroughs and the market traders to reach agreement. We accept that it is the principle of inheritance which has most exercised the market traders.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: Following the earlier interventions, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I press this point a little further, because it causes immense anxiety among those who are most directly

concerned. The proposals involve a break in tradition. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's assurance needs to be couched in more precise language. Just to say that acceptance of the principle is hereby acknowledged is not sufficient at this stage. The hon. Gentleman understands that this issue crosses party lines and that anxiety is felt on both sides of the House. Therefore, I am sure that he wishes to help the House with a much more concrete assurance which specifically states that the rights of direct inheritance and succession will be restored.

Mr. Banks: I thought that I had already said that. I can only accept what appears on the Order Paper in terms of the wording of the first instruction. There is nothing else for me to accept, apart from the first instruction and the principle that there will be the ability to pass on through the families of the traders the market licence for the market stalls. That seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable assurance.

Mr. John Cartwright: I know only too well that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to be helpful on this issue. However, as I read the first instruction it puts the situation back to what it was before the Bill was introduced. It refers to the pre-existing rights of succession. If that is the case, many hon. Members will be satisfied. However, the hon. Gentleman muddied the waters more than a little by going on to say that these matters will be discussed between the promoters of the Bill and the market traders. If the law is not to be changed, is there any need for discussion?

Mr. Banks: The need for further discussion seems to be that hon. Members have not fully understood what I have said. I have said that we accept instruction No. 1. That must be comprehensible to all hon. Members as I assume that the words in the instruction mean the same to everyone. It means that we can go back to the pre-existing position. What else do hon. Members want?

Mr. Vivian Bendall: I am a little confused. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can enlighten me. Why, then, is further discussion needed?

Mr. Banks: Because it is in the Bill and I am introducing the Second Reading debate. I have said that we accept instruction No. 1. I do not know what more the hon. Gentleman wants. I want to get on, but I am being delayed by all these interruptions. If we are accepting instruction No. 1, someone will have to produce the necessary amendments for the Committee stage. I should have thought that even the hon. Gentleman could understand that.

Ms. Harriet Harman: I understand that my hon. Friend has accepted the instruction in my name and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) and others to the effect that the pre-existing rights to succession vested in street traders will be preserved. That is the principle that we want but it is not in the clause. Discussions will therefore have to take place to ensure that provisions are drafted to meet that principle. I think that we should be satisfied with that.

Mr. Banks: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for spelling this out so that everyone can understand. The Bill is silent on the subject of inheritance. Amendments will be needed in Committee because we have said that we are


restoring and preserving inheritance. There should be no doubt in anyone's mind but that the boroughs have entirely conceded the market traders' case in this respect.
I cannot accept instruction No. 4 in the same unqualified way, but I hope to satisfy the hon. Members for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) that it is unnecessary. Personally, I do not believe that the boroughs consulted the market traders adequately. From the evidence that I have, there seems to have been scant consultation with the London-based Federation of Street Traders Unions and little, if any, consultation with the National Market Traders Federation. [Interruption.] I do not wish to break up any cross-Chamber discussions, but I should like to continue.
Representatives of the London boroughs have told me that they sought consultation on the London Boroughs Association working party report in June 1983 but received no response and that they also received no response when they produced the draft Bill. I do not know exactly where the breakdown in communications occurred or whose fault it was, but there has been considerable muddying of the waters and possibly some misunderstanding. The market traders seem to have been left in the dark for rather a long time, which no doubt exacerbated certain unnecessary fears on their part. I am sure that most of them, as honest, hard-working traders, accept the need for some regulation for the benefit of both traders and shoppers.
The GLC has tried to act as an honest broker to bring the various parties together and I believe that we have made considerable progress. With a little more time, I know that we can reach an overall agreement, so I hope that the House will give the Bill a fair wind today.
Many of the clauses in part V of the Bill are unexceptionable but necessary and, I believe, could be accepted by boroughs and market traders alike with certain amendments. It would be a great shame to lose perhaps the last chance to achieve some rationalisation of street trading in London by throwing out the whole of part V. Clause 37 deals with definitions, clause 38 excludes the City of London and clause 39 concerns offences for trading without a licence. All those provisions have been agreed, so there seems to be no problem there.
Clause 40 deals with the designation of streets. At present, in inner London there is a right of appeal to the Home Secretary. If the clause is passed as it stands that right of appeal will be removed. We have a Minister from the Home Office with us today and we understand that the Home Office does not wish to be the appeals authority for the whole of London. In fact, appeals are rarely made, but market traders in inner London see the right of appeal as an insurance policy. I am sure that no one wants the Bill to go through without making provision for an appeals authority. Speaking from years of experience of local government, I would not wish to leave it at local council level, but I believe that there must be a right of appeal. This will be a matter for discussion between the traders and the boroughs, but I have the authority to say that the clause will be amended in Committee to preserve the right of appeal.
The Home Office, of course, may object. It would help, therefore, if the Minister of State will tell us today whether the Home Office is prepared to accept a responsibility which has not proved particularly onerous in relation to inner London.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman be more explicit and make it clear that the Bill will not go through unless there is a right of appeal? If the Home Office will not accept responsibility, who will do so if the GLC no longer exists? Unless the hon. Gentleman can give those assurances, my hon. Friends and I will not be satisfied.

Mr. Banks: I should very much like to answer that directly, but it is not in my power to do so at present. I have invited the Minister to comment and I hope that he will do so. The Home Office would not be taking on a great deal of responsibility. I am sure that the Minister does not wish to jeopardise the Bill, in view of what the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey has said.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Giles Shaw): In general, the Government's view is that an appellate power devolved on the Home Secretary is a rather unnecessary way to handle an appeals procedure which should be dealt with at a much more local level. That there should be an appeals procedure in the Bill, however, will no doubt be hotly debated in Committee.

Mr. Banks: The appeal could be through the Greater London Council. It would delight me no end if the Minister could tell us that the Government intend to drop their proposal to abolish the GLC. There would then be ample machinery for appeals. I hope that that deals with the fears expressed by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey. I see the hon. Gentleman shaking his head. Apparently he is not satisfied, so the Government are now jeopardising the Bill.

Ms. Harman: If the Home Office will not accept the responsibilities that it ought to accept and refuses to allow the right of appeal to the Home Office, will my hon. Friend assure the House that the clause will not go through unless an appeals procedure can be achieved with the designation of a body agreed by the street traders associations and the sponsors of the Bill. It must be an independent procedure which commands the support of the street traders. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that the right of appeal will not fall if the Home Office reneges on its responsibilities?

Mr. Banks: Yes, I am empowered to give such an assurance, which will undoubtedly meet the point made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey. I believe, however, that the appeals procedure would be better exercised through the Home Office. If the Home Office refuses to extend its present appeals function in inner London to cover greater London, that will be a great pity—but if that happens we shall certainly table the necessary amendments in Committee to satisfy traders that there will be some form of independent appeal.

Mr. Simon Hughes: It is important to get this point clear. Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that unless that can be agreed between the sponsors and the traders clause 40 will go?

Mr. Banks: The hon. Gentleman has a funny idea of what negotiation is all about. He seems to be saying that, if we do not entirely accept what the market traders are likely to put to us, the whole clause should go. I believe that we should find a mutually acceptable appeals procedure. It is a very strange appeals procedure which does not satisfy all those likely to appeal to it. The hon. Gentleman is pushing us rather hard, especially as it is not


for me to negotiate the fine print while on my feet. I should have thought that my acceptance of the principle would satisfy the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Bendall: For many years there has been a problem in the licensed taxi trade about not having a right of appeal. The Transport Bill has just dealt with the matter, and the clause involved an appeal to the magistrates court. Could the hon. Gentleman give us an assurance perhaps in that direction?

Mr. Banks: On the surface of it, having just had that idea bounced at me, a form of legal appeal would seem to be acceptable. However, I ask hon. Members to be reasonable. Such things would need to be considered. I am not trying to be evasive and I am not trying to duck the issue. I am trying hard to concede the principle without crossing the "t's" and dotting the "i's" here. Clearly one is not in a very good position to do that now.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Does the hon. Gentleman have in mind an appeal to the courts, or a judicial form of appeal?

Mr. Banks: In the final analysis, an appeal that ends up in the courts is better than an appeal that stops short of them. That must be true for all appeals. We all have our own opinions about the independence of the judiciary, but by and large it seems to be more independent than most other institutions that I can think of immediately unless there is to be an appeal to the GLC. However, we might not be around to hear it. But of course I accept the hon. Gentleman's point.
Clause 41 relates to applications for licences. With regard to subsection (3), the boroughs concede the case against the countersigning of photographs. They consider that to be unnecessary, so that also will be removed from the Bill. Subsection (4) (a) refers to a licence being granted only to someone aged 18 or over. The market traders want to see a reduction to the age of 17. There is, of course, a problem, because the age of legal majority is 18. However, I understand that in miscellaneous provisions the Government seem to concede the age of 17, so it seems only reasonable to accept that age. After all, market trading is an arduous business and if someone can pass the business on to a son or daughter at an earlier age he or she can no doubt then enjoy some well-deserved retirement. Therefore, that, too, will be conceded. With regard to subsection (6) (e), the boroughs have conceded the point about on-storage facilities.
Clause 42 relates to the duration and terms of licences. Unfortunately, this is another sticky one. At present, those conditions are covered by byelaws. I understand that under the Bill it is proposed that the boroughs should specify the conditions. I hope that hon. Members have noticed that licences in general will be extended from the present one year to three years. That is clearly welcomed by the market traders. But, of course, the market traders want to retain terms and conditions that are determined by byelaws. The boroughs have not yet conceded that point, but in my discussions with them I have been assured that if more time is given for consultation there will be an amicable outcome. It is a generalised statement, but I am convinced that there is good will here to meet the point. If hon. Members want my personal opinion, it is that I have

sympathy with those who want to see the conditions retained through byelaws, as that seems to be a much neater and more precise way of dealing with this aspect of the Bill.

Mr. Simon Hughes: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the difference between the byelaw procedure and the regulations procedure is that the byelaw procedure has an appeal system built into it. I should like him to say that by the time the Bill leaves Committee the clause will have settled for the byelaw rather than the regulation procedure. We need to know that there is an appeals system under this clause, just as we have been told that there will be one in the other clause.

Mr. Banks: I can gladly help the hon. Gentleman. In everything that we do, there must be an adequate and acceptable appeals procedure, so I accept that. However, I ask hon. Members to give the boroughs and market traders a little more time in which to come up with something that is mutually satisfactory. But in principle I should like to see appeals procedures written into the Bill throughout. That is the only way that hon. Members can be satisfied that the Bill has a fail-safe mechanism.
Clause 43 deals with the revocation of licences. It is generally acceptable—this goes back to instruction No. 1 — with the exception of the silence on inheritance. I have said that we have accepted instruction No. 1, so it has been restored. In those circumstances, I hope that we shall not have to go over the ground again.

Mr. Bendall: What sort of convictions does the hon. Gentleman anticipate under paragraph (e) ? The words used leave it very wide, and could mean that for drunken driving the trader would lose not only his driving licence but his licence to trade.

Mr. Banks: I cannot be as precise as the hon. Gentleman would like me to be. However, I should have thought that in principle we would want those trading commercially to be of a fit and proper character in all respects. We know that there are certain criminal offences that preclude applicants from securing other licences. However, I cannot be more precise than that. We should not want invidious requirements to be written into this part of the Bill that are not normal in other areas of licensing where there are certain disqualifications.

Mr. Bendall: Perhaps the phrase "serious criminal offence" might be better.

Mr. Banks: It is a very interesting point. Some would take issue with the phrase "serious criminal offence". There would be instant divisions in the House if hon. Members started talking about what constituted a serious offence during the miners' dispute. This is a difficult area. The hon. Gentleman is reaching out towards a solution, but we have not yet reached it.

Mr. Ian Mikardo (Bow and Popular): I was involved in a campaign to ask a local authority not to renew the licence of a trader who had been committing the offence of selling racist literature and of inciting racial hatred. I should not want a situation in which such a refusal to renew the licence was impossible.

Ms. Harman: rose —

Mr. Banks: I give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Hon. Members must not intervene in the interventions of hon. Members.

Mr. Banks: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I gave way immediately. However, if you wish me to preface my giving way with a few sentences, I shall do so.

Ms. Harman: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Banks: I give way to my hon. Friend.

Ms. Harman: My hon. Friend started by saying that in general he thought that clause 43 was acceptable. Paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) deal with revoking licences if there is not enough space, if the trader is trading in a class of articles that is not approved, or if a licence holder has persistently failed to trade for the number of days specified in every week. But clause 45(1) (c) (ii) seems to say that it is impossible to appeal against those three grounds of revocation. That is a genuine query. If there is not the same right of appeal, there should be.

Mr. Banks: I am being asked some very detailed questions. While hon. Members make their speeches, I shall seek advice and answer the points raised when I reply to the debate. I hope that hon. Members will bear in mind that I shall reply to their points later.

Ms. Harman: Does my hon. Friend accept that a provision to revoke a licence on the ground of a person having committed an offence that makes him unsuitable is rather vague? It is always best to have a schedule that will lay down which offences render someone unsuitable. Everything that is not scheduled would not render someone unsuitable. That would be better than having subjective definitions of such words as "serious".

Mr. Banks: I am sympathetic to my hon. Friend's suggestion. Perhaps we could start with the Ten Commandments and then work our way through the various other crimes enshrined in the criminal code. However, I accept that we cannot leave the matter open by using a word like "serious". These are matters of detail that can be settled in Committee. My hon. Friend's suggestion of a schedule that specifies every offence would mean a rather large Bill.

Mr. Colin Moynihan: A more general but important point that has worried street traders is that clause 43 (1) (e) contains the words
or for any other reason.
Surely with that phrase in the Bill, there is no point traders in appealing to a court.

Mr. Banks: rose —

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate seems to be turning into a prolonged Committee stage. It might be better if we were to proceed in our usual fashion, which is for hon. Members to have the opportunity to make their own speeches and for the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) to have the opportunity at the end of the debate to reply to the points raised.

Mr. Banks: For that relief, much thanks Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am trying to be as reasonable and as accommodating as possible so that the House can give the Bill a Second Reading.
I agree with the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) that all legislation should be as precise as possible and not open to wide interpretation. Although a

Minister might say, "This is in my mind," unless it is enshrined in legislation someone else will come along with a different interpretation that was not in the Minister's mind. Therefore, we want the Bill to be as precise as possible and not contain the vague generalities contained in this clause.
Further discussions are being held on clause 44, which relates to the grant, renewal or revocation of licences. The differences of opinion are not great and I am confident that the discussions will prove satisfactory.

Mr. Dykes: I hope that you will accept my apologies, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for rising when you have suggested that we follow the normal procedure. However, an important point arises on this clause. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) for tolerating such a large number of interventions.
There is anxiety among street traders that, although clause 45 sets out the appeal's procedure — I am not grumbling about that — it nevertheless contains a provision that the borough councils would not be obliged to conduct a hearing at the request of the aggrieved party. It may be going too far to reverse that completely, but will the hon. Gentleman give a partial undertaking that that wording will be reconsidered following discussions with the agencies concerned so that the hearing can be rendered permissive at the request of the aggrieved party?

Mr. Banks: I shall come back to that point when I reply to the debate. The principle appears to be a good one After all, we are dealing with people's livelihoods. They should have ample opportunity to put their case to, and to be satisfied that their case has been heard by, an independent body.
Clause 46, dealing with temporary licences, is acceptable to the traders — unless hon. Members have information that has not been given to me.
On clause 47, the market traders rightly thought that the use of waiting lists offered the possibility of corruption. The boroughs have agreed to withdraw that. It is tied in with instruction No. 1, which allows for inheritance and advertising. Therefore, in a way, clause 47 is now redundant.
Clause 48 deals with fees and charges. The boroughs expressed a wish to vary fees, but the market traders believed that that would lead to an administrative nightmare and they strongly objected to it. I understand that the boroughs have offered to drop the differential charges based on goods sold. That should meet the traders' objections. However, it will be subject to further discussion under clause 48(1) (c).
We come now to the exciting bit—clause 49, which deals with receptacles and containers. The boroughs are willing to concede the traders' request that they do not have to use only the receptacles provided by the boroughs. The boroughs have realised that this is unreasonable.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the provision in clause 48 for differential charges to be based on goods has been dropped?

Mr. Banks: I have dealt with that, but I think the hon. Gentleman was talking at the time, or being talked to or at. He missed what I said, which was that my latest information is that the boroughs have offered to drop differential charging based on goods sold.
Clause 50, dealing with offences, provides new powers to deal with unlicensed trading. That is as much in the


interests of the market traders as it is in the interests of the local authority. There have been some objections to subsection (1) (e), which requires traders to produce their licences, duly signed and bearing a photograph, if requested by an authorised council officer or a constable. But, of course, that subsection provides for a reasonable excuse for not being able to comply with subsection (1) (e). Again, "reasonable" is the word that lawyers love to hear because it means fat fees. Indeed, the lawyers tell me that that is true. The Bill is designed to help local authorities and market traders, not lawyers. The boroughs have offered to amend clause 50 so that market traders are required to produce their licence only when they are trading. There was some thought that they might get knocked up at 3 am by a police officer or an inquisitive council officer and be asked to produce their licence. The clause also allows a reasonable excuse to be offered.
Clause 51 concerns the power to remove receptacles and I understand that there is no problem with it. Clause 52 concerns the employment of assistants. Clause 52(1) provides for licence holders to employ an assistant provided that the licence holder is in attendance. On the face of it, that seems unreasonable, as the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) told me elsewhere. The clause is designed to prevent traders from holding several market licences in different London markets and therefore trading at different times and places. That is all the more likely if we are restoring inheritance.
Traders who trade at different times and at different markets deprive local consumers of a service and deny access to others who might wish to trade but cannot because the local authority tells them that all the pitches are notionally full. The stalls at Stratford market in my constituency are always present on Friday and Saturday, but they are not on other days when they might be. The traders might be trading elsewhere. That is to the disbenefit of local consumers. There is a danger here because we have agreed on instruction No. 1. The boroughs have a strong case, but they are making it badly. However, what they are trying to achieve is reasonable.

Mr. Cartwright: I am grateful for the reasonable way in which the hon. Gentleman has presented clause 52, but I am worried about it, as are street traders. It gives the local authority a sweeping power, as does clause 43(1) (d) which provides that a trader might lose his licence if he has
without reasonable excuse failed personally to attend at the fixed position to which his licence refers at all reasonable times".
What is a "reasonable excuse"? What are "reasonable times"? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that these are sweeping powers and that there might be better ways in which to deal with the problem?

Mr. Banks: I can only agree with the hon. Gentleman. I have said all along that the use of such words leads to insecurity and doubt. Perhaps I may return to that matter later. If the House concedes that the boroughs have a good case, it must be possible to produce acceptable wording in Committee. The boroughs have a case, but it is not well put in the Bill. I am not responsible for the Bill's wording, and I am grateful for that.
Clause 53 concerns savings and clause 54 deals with the repeal of local enactments relating to street trading. I understand that traders are worried about the transitional period and that the boroughs are more than ready to extend

it. That is a matter for discussion. Schedule 2 demonstrates far better than I can the patchwork of current street trading regulations in London. We should not allow that to continue. If the GLC is abolished, this is perhaps the last opportunity that we shall have to get some form of regulation.
Street trading is an essential and colourful feature of commercial life in London. Part V introduces a more coherent pattern of trading. I hope that the answers that I have given on the hoof satisfy hon. Members that the Bill should be given a Second Reading, although I shall endeavour to answer hon. Members' questions. I have mixed pleasure in moving the Bill's Second Reading, but I can say one thing with great confidence — that the GLC still remains the finest and most progressive local authority in the land.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I cannot go along with the latter comments of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), but I congratulate him on being elected the final chairman of the GLC and on his distinction in moving the Bill's Second Reading in that capacity. I understand that Winston Churchill said that a majority of one is enough.
I take issue with the hon. Gentleman's assertion that one of the great benefits of the Bill is that it will standardise street trading in London. East London is different from south-east London, which is quite different from west London. To impose a common approach is a great mistake and characteristic of the present GLC.
Instruction No. 1 should not have been necessary. We are all suspicious of the Bill. It should not have been allowed to be presented in its present form. There were no consultations between the GLC, national bodies and street traders until the Bill was produced.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Greenway: No.

Ms. Harman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. Greenway: I shall give way on no point. It is difficult for the hon. Member for Newham North-West to negotiate on his feet, but I must congratulate him. He did awfully well. He was put in a most difficult position by the GLC. The GLC must take responsibility. The Bill has been before Parliament for a long time—I have had a blocking motion on it for well over six months.

Mr. Spearing: Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider his earlier decision?

Mr. Greenway: No.
Even on Tuesday, the GLC told the street traders that it was prepared to make concessions, but it was not prepared to give them anything in writing. That is what has upset street traders so much, and rightly. It is quite wrong that this Second Reading debate should be turned into a Committee stage, as it would have been but for your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, simply because preparation for the Bill has been so bad.

Mr. Clive Soley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Greenway: I shall not give way to anybody.

Mr. Mikardo: The hon. Gentleman is being churlish.

Mr. Greenway: I have undertaken not to speak for too long because many others wish to get in. The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) has known me long enough to know that I am not churlish. I am trying to make a fairly rapid speech so that others can speak.
My attitude to the Bill is mixed. The measure has some good points, but I am strongly opposed to parts V and VI in relation to street trading. Unless the promoters are prepared to withdraw those parts, I shall divide the House against the Bill, and I warn them to watch out.
I am concerned at the failure of the Bill to tackle other areas which could have been dealt with, including parking problems in London, in particular residents' parking, and the harassment of shopkeepers who are not street traders. Both those issues could have been dealt with.
I welcome the provisions dealing with sex shops and therefore I do not oppose those provisions. I have explained that I oppose parts V and VI, and it is not respectable for the GLC or the promoters to seek to lever the House into accepting what is not acceptable by including provisions such as those dealing with sex shops.

Mr. Soley: The hon. Gentleman is getting into a muddle. He cannot oppose what he claims to oppose without at this stage opposing the whole of the Bill. He may wish to oppose bits of the Bill in Committee, and that will be different. He should be aware that any lack of communication has not been the fault of the GLC. That is the concern of the LBA and Westminster.

Mr. Greenway: I was referring to correspondence with the GLC. I understand that there is nothing to prevent the hon. Member for Newham, North-West from agreeing to delete parts V and VI and allowing the rest of the Bill to stand. Then the important provisions relating to sex shops would remain and we would not oppose the Bill. The responsibility is that of the promoters.
Soho is highlighted, and rightly so, in the provisions dealing with sex shops. St. James' and St. Ann's school in Soho has been known to me for 28 years; it was formerly St. James' and St. Peter's school. In the days of the Windmill and other local theatres, the atmosphere was calmer and more suitable for the schoolchildren than is the case today. It is a disgrace that children must run the gauntlet of three or four sex shops to get to school. We must tighten the law in that respect. The Bill, without parts V and VI, would do that.
Other sex shops exist outside Soho. Indeed, there is one quite near the House. They have proved to be totally offensive to people, who see massive notices announcing, for example, "Explicit sex" and advertising videos and so on. Small children walk past, and there are heavy bouncers on the doors. That is not acceptable in our society and something must be done about it.
I have received a letter from the headmaster of Soho parish school. He has to live with that situation and try to give the children in his care a proper education. He writes:
My school, with 110 children aged between three and eleven is in a short street with three sex establishments and a fourth in process of construction. One is next to our main entrance. These unregulated activities are a constant offence to families bringing children to and from school. Men touting for customers constantly harass parents and staff. Children hear offensive language and must walk past displays for topless bars and suggestive pictures. Our visitors are propositioned by the prostitutes who operate from these premises. Perhaps the worst aspect of the street is the fact that a high proportion of unbalanced characters are attracted to it. Groups of men stand about the narrow pavements which we must use whenever we take children

out on visits. Noisy crowds of football supporters and young tourists regularly gather here, and from time to time I have to call the police before children can leave the building to go home. Regulation of this is desperately needed. As I am sure you are aware behind all of this lies a wide range of criminal activity, from pick-pocketing to traffic in hard drugs. It is a matter of considerable anxiety to us that all this happens outside the school gates.
It would be a shame if the attack on street traders in parts V and VI were allowed to put the other excellent legislation in the Bill in jeopardy. I hope that those parts of the Bill can be withdrawn so that the rest can stand and sex shops brought under control.
The Bill will do nothing about parking, especially the massive double parking that is occurring all over London. The system of residents' parking has largely broken down in Westminster and elsewhere, and the system as it operates in Westminster and some other boroughs would be useless in boroughs such as Ealing.
People are paying perhaps £45 a year to park their cars, though one house may be issued with a number of parking permits. That is cluttering up the streets, but the Bill does not attempt to deal with that. I know of one three-storey house the occupants of which have six cars, each with a permit to park. Perhaps a provision could be added to the Bill at a later stage to deal with the parking problem. Issuing parking permits only to ratepayers, and not to fly-by-night residents, would probably get to the nub of the problem.
Perhaps the Bill could be made to apply to matters affecting shopkeepers as well as street traders. In Ealing and other boroughs some shopkeepers have suddenly become harassed for putting wares outside their shop, although they have been doing so for some years. I accept that wares should not be placed outside shops if the pavements are narrow, but there should be no objection where pavements are wide. I measured the pavement at one location where a complaint had been made and found it to be 30ft wide. Perhaps we should leave well alone, and the hon. Member for Newham, North-West might wish to comment on that when he replies to the debate.
I will explain why I feel so strongly about parts V and VI relating to street traders. Costermongers, street traders and so on are represented by, and run in, families in London and elsewhere in Britain, and that has been the situation for many generations. That is well known and well established. The public like that state of affairs. They know the families on the local pitch and respond to them.
I have had the honour of teaching many a barrow boy from King's Cross, east London, south-east London and elsewhere, and I assure the House that they and their families are the purest gold. They are often what might be called the cement of the local community. To damage them in the way that the Bill seeks to do is not a process with which I could live.
Having been in discussions with street traders, I know that there are at least four points on which they would not budge, and I support them in their view. I will make those four points. First, the nominated relatives clause is, they say, far too restrictive because it would remove rights gained in previous legislation. It is normal for the next of kin to take over. That has been the case for generations, and to seek to disturb that pattern is a big miscalculation.
The second point concerns the loss of right to appeal to the Home Secretary against a London borough's decision on street designation or de-designation. It would mean that the street traders could be thrown out with no


appeal. I wonder whether the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) was finally accepted—that an appeal to a magistrates court would be the right way forward.
Thirdly, there is the provision whereby a trader has to be in attendance personally at all reasonable times at his designated stall or pitch. That has not been mentioned. It will mean that the licence holder cannot leave anyone else in charge. I do not believe that any playing about with words will alter that situation. Street traders are honourable people. They would feel vulnerable if that provision were allowed to become law. Who is to say what "all reasonable times" means? At some point the matter will come before a court of law, implying that there would have been a prosecution and serious damage to someone. I cannot stand by and see that go through without my opposition.
Under the fourth provision, which has been touched on only too lightly, a trader is prevented from holding more than one licence, thus preventing him or her from expanding the business. According to my researches—I have talked to people out on the pitches—that means that they would be allowed only one 9ft by 3ft barrow, and all wares and scales would have to be on that barrow, by law. That must be severely restrictive. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West did not refer to that. It is completely unacceptable. On those grounds alone, parts V and VI are complete nonsense.
With respect, I did not think that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West made an adequate case for people being prevented from having a second, or another, licence in another market or even another borough. I could not go along with what he said on that. It is sad that there has not been adequate discussion.

Mr. Tony Banks: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman feels that there has not been adequate discussion. I do not think that I have been so long on my feet in the House since I was elected in 1983. I thought that I was going on for far too long.
I cannot accept that the problems that he is referring to are the responsibility of the GLC. I think that I have understood the mood of the House quite quickly. Hon. Members are scurrying backwards and forwards across the Chamber. I think that it might be of some assistance to the House if I say that I accept instruction 4, or words to that effect, to leave out part V altogether—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear".] Hon. Members should not cheer too loudly. I shall submit better drafted new clauses in Committee. I feel that there are some clear inadequacies in the Bill. I do not want to take responsibility for them here. Therefore, all the matters relating to street traders will be taken out of the Bill and resubmitted in Committee. I refer to parts V and VI—[Interruption.]

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Greenway: The people in the Gallery—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's speech must not extend beyond the Bar of the House.

Mr. Greenway: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West for responding to the pressure that was put upon him, and for sound reasons. He has responded in a handsome way. It is sad that the Bill ever

came to the House in this form and that one of the finest groups of people in London and beyond — the street traders—has been so disturbed and distressed. It need not and should not have happened. But the House of Commons has spoken; democracy has spoken. I am glad to have had some part—

Mr. John Wheeler: Does my hon. Friend accept that the solution that has been presented to the House enables the Bill to proceed with other clauses that are essential to the good of London, particularly the sex establishment clauses, which Westminster city council in particular is promoting?

Mr. Greenway: I believe that the Bill should proceed. As I always said, parts I to IV are thoroughly sound. I accept that.

Mr. Spearing: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that those parts of the Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has now withdrawn for the time being and subject to further discussion and consultation were initially the responsibility of the London Boroughs Association and its leading authority, Westminster city council? Had the consultation that has taken place almost around the Floor of the House occurred properly at that stage, we would not have been placed in the position in which we found ourselves tonight.

Mr. Greenway: Let me be clear about what the hon. Member for Newham, North-West has agreed. If I heard him aright, he has agreed to withdraw parts V and VI totally. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] As that is so, I thank the hon. Gentleman and the House.

Ms. Harriet Harman: I have been very concerned about the Bill because in my constituency there is a thriving market —East Street market—which has been there for many years. It is important not only for the street traders and their families who depend on the market, but for the people who live in my constituency who use that market. That has not been mentioned in the debate. It is not only about the rights of street traders, although that is of paramount importance, but about the rights of people who want to use the market and the services that the street traders provide.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), upon whom it fell to promote the Bill, knows of my concerns because I mentioned them to him before the debate. I am grateful to him for taking those concerns on board. It is important to note at this stage that it is vital that we have a Greater London council that can put forward Londonwide legislation on behalf of all the different boroughs. However, the villian of the piece that produced the unacceptable parts V and VI of the Bill was the London Boroughs Association, particularly Westminster city council, which has waged a war on its own street traders. That council is the villain of the piece, but through the procedures of the House it fell to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West to introduce the Bill, including those parts.
Therefore, I absolutely deplore the cheap statements made by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), who sought to mislead the House and imply that somehow it was the GLC that had responsibility for the Bill, in its substance and conception, which is not the case. The letter that the hon. Gentleman is holding up will


show, on page 3 — if he has read it—that the GLC promoted the Bill only on behalf of the London Boroughs Association.
I have spoken about the importance of the rights of street traders and the rights of those who use the markets. During the negotiations on the Bill, I have been grateful for the briefings that I received from the street traders association. I share the concern of members of the association. It is to their credit that they have managed to bring their case to the House, despite the complexities of the Private Member's Bill procedure — an extremely mysterious procedure involving Opposed Private Bill Committees and Instructions—and despite the attempts by the London Boroughs Association and Westminster city council to mystify the procedure to prevent the traders from putting their case. They have understandably felt insecure about the suggestion that these clauses should be included. Rights of succession which they have enjoyed for 20 or more years were threatened suddenly, without proper consultation or argument. That is why they are here in such numbers and should be welcomed by the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) and I tabled an instruction about the right of succession. That is one of the main reasons why my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West has agreed to withdraw the clauses. When seeking to argue its case on why my hon. Friend and I should withdraw our instruction, the only point which the London Boroughs Association placed before us as argument was that it was a unique provision in inner London and in licensing legislation. The association must do better than that. If it is going to ask the House to take away a long-standing right, it has to argue its case. The association has failed to do that. If the lack of arguments in the letter from the London Boroughs Association reflects the way in which it consulted the street traders, I am not surprised that we have ended up with such a misplaced piece of legislation.
I was concerned about the lack of a right of appeal against a de-designation of a whole street market. We are talking about taking away many people's livelihoods and an important amenity, without any right of appeal.
I was concerned also about the revocation of the licence of street traders under clause 43. There seemed to be no right of appeal for those whose licences were revoked under paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). The cases covered by paragraphs (g), (e), (f) and (i) are so wide that they can be subject to any interpretation. Hon. Members have already referred to paragraph (e) which allows revocation where
the licence holder is unsuitable to hold the licence by reason of having been convicted of an offence or for any other reason".
That is not good law. We should not allow it. If we say that a person's livelihood will be taken away, we should say why and give that person a proper right of appeal.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms. Harman: I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has just appeared in the House.

Mr. Bruinvels: In Leicester, one of the striking miners' groups came into the market and was pelted with rotten fruit by various market stall owners, who were informed by Leicester city council that, because they were acting in that way, they could lose their licences. Presumably, under the terms "for any other reason" those people would have lost their licence. That is wrong. I am delighted that the hon. Lady agrees.

Ms. Harman: I said that if people's livelihoods were to be taken away, the grounds on which that was done should be specified in a schedule and they should have a right of appeal. However, an assault on other people who were lawfully using a market might well constitute a ground on which licences could be suspended or revoked. We are not dealing with that. We are going to agree that the grounds should be specified by and agreed between the market traders and the GLC.
I shall not go through all the objections to the measures, because my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West, on behalf of the GLC, has made concessions. I congratulate the street traders on their campaign. It is unfortunate that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West, had to introduce the Bill with such objectionable provisions when, in fact, those measures came from the Conservative-controlled London Boroughs Association, and in particular Westminster city council.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: I declare an interest as the. unpaid parliamentary consultant to the National Federation of Market Traders and, obviously the representative of the city of Leicester market, which has the largest covered market in Europe. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) has discussed various points in part V which have concerned me. I have been lobbied substantially by people from all over the country because various stall holders felt that they would lose their livelihood under these measures. This worried me especially because I have had the experience not only of regularly going to the Leicester city market but of working in the market and meeting many of the people who were concerned that their futures would be at risk.

Mr. Christopher Murphy: Does my hon. Friend agree that many of us who represent constituencies close to London feel strongly about this issue, because many of our constituents have the benefit of shopping in London markets and a number of them are street traders? We are grateful for the concession that has been made by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks).

Mr. Bruinvels: This is a major point. The Conservative party is the party of small businesses. Many of our market traders are small business men fighting bureaucracy and trying to achieve a decent living, but they have had great difficulties with this Bill. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will be delighted at the news that we have heard tonight. I am a little worried as to whether the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) can formally withdraw the parts. We shall hear more on that as we proceed.
I wish to place on the record the objections that came from the Leicester branch of the National Market Traders Federation. The chairman, Graham Chambers, itemised the points of concern and said that in no way did the federation want the Bill to proceed. He referred first to the
Abolition of currently enjoyed appeal rights.
Those rights are limited anyway, but they would have been further eroded by these measures. Secondly, Mr. Chambers referred to
The requirement to carry an identity card with photograph at all times.
We are not yet in a police state, thank goodness. The requirement to carry a photograph is a strange way of


running one's business. The name of the business has to be put on the side of the stall, but the federation felt that it was wrong to require a photograph.

Mr. Mikardo: rose —

Mr. Bruinvels: Thirdly, Mr. Chambers objected to
The local Council's right to know where equipment is stored when not in use.
The federation wanted me to object forcefully to that measure. The fourth point stated:
The requirement for a licence holder to be in attendance in person at his stall at all reasonable times.
Many hon. Members accept that there are occasions when the main stallholder cannot be at his place of work. Great family businesses are involved, and a family may run two or three stalls in the same market. Unfortunately, as luck has it, those stalls may not be together and the operators may have to move all over the market. It would have been wrong to insert that provision.
Fifthly, the federation objected to
Fines of up to £400·00 for street trading offences such as failing to clear up trade refuse.
That is an incredibly high sum. Why do market traders pay for their licences in the first place if they must pay as well a fine for not clearing up refuse? Street traders are honourable people, and they do their best to clear up. Of course, there will always be rubbish at the end of the day in all street markets. Street traders pay rates for the rubbish to be taken away. They become indignant when told they will be fined up to £400 for not clearing up the refuse. This measure would have been unacceptable to them.
The proposal about the compulsory purchase of market stalls by the council was another worry. The stallholder would have lived in fear, not knowing whether his licence was to be renewed from week to week or whether he was to have real tenure in the market. Market stallholders and their families have carried on a great tradition in this country for many years. It would be shocking if suddenly, for no apparent reason, they could face a compulsory purchase order.
I have referred to the unpleasant incident in Leicester when a number of striking miners entered the market trying to collect for other striking miners—of whom, thank goodness, there were only 30 in the Leicester area. Some of the stallholders had had enough. They wanted to carry on with their business, and the striking miners effectively prevented business from being conducted. I do not blame those stallholders who threw tomatoes and rotten fruit at the miners. The miners were preventing people from doing their shopping.

Mr. Soley: rose —

Mr. Bruinvels: Another point of concern was the loss of licenses for any other offence, whether connected with the market or not. That was very wrong. It might be that the stallholder had not paid his rates—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Gentleman must refer to Leicester only incidentally. We are discussing a Bill about London.

Mr. Bruinvels: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am referring to the London boroughs, too, but I have the Leicester market on my mind because that is where I operate from. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I appreciate the stallholders' problems. I digressed for a

moment in order to give you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the House, the opportunity to learn about the situation in Leicester.
I was also concerned about the loss of the right to transfer the licence to the next of kin upon retirement. Stallholders' families traditionally occupy the same site for hundreds of years. Stallholders may wish to asign the site to their son or grandson, whom they will have trained in the market over the years. The provision would have meant the end of that tradition. Young people learn by experience and by regular attendance in the market. The children and young people who stand in for their fathers or grandfathers at the stall would not have been allowed to inherit it under that provision.

Mr. Banks: If.

Mr. Bruinvels: Of course it is "If'. My constituents, and those of other London Members, were very worried about those provisions.
The provision about "nominated relatives" appears to be far too restrictive. There was also the loss of right of appeal to the Secretary of State against the London boroughs' decision on street designation or de-designation. The provision to the effect that a trader would have to be in attendance personally at all reasonable times caused great concern, as did the provision that prevented traders from holding more than one licence, which would have prevented traders from expanding their business. The Conservative party is the party of the small business. Everyone should have the opportunity to expand his business.
I tabled an instruction — it has not been called —seeking to give the street traders the right of appeal to a magistrates court against the revocation of a licence to trade.

Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely it is not in order for an hon. Member to refer to an instruction that has not been called. I made a concession earlier so that the debate could be truncated, but I might as well not have done so. The debate is going round and round.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If an hon. Member were to go round and round for more than a sentence or two, I would stop him.

Mr. Moynihan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could you clarify a technical problem? As we are debating Second Reading, is it not out of order for the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) to seek to withdraw parts V and VI of the Bill, and is not that action technically totally ineffective?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps I can help the House. I understand the way in which the debate has been proceeding, but we are debating the Second Reading of the Bill together with instructions 1 and 4. There may have been indications that certain things may happen during the course of the debate. That does not alter the course of the debate. The debate will continue on a broad front for as long as the House wishes. If any hon. Member wishes to move instructions 1 and 4, and if there is time, we may come to a conclusion upon them. At the moment, however, we are debating the Second Reading together with instructions 1 and 4.

Mr. Greenway: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During my speech it was virtually agreed


with the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) that the Second Reading would be agreed, but he gave his word that parts V and VI would not be proceeded with.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That will be a matter for the House to decide in due course. At the moment the House is debating the Second Reading. In no way can I or should I alter that debate because certain things have been said during the course of it.

Mr. Banks: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am responsible for the Bill in the House. Effectively, the GLC is the promoter, although, as you have made clear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is not responsible in this case. I do not know whether, speaking as the representative of the GLC, I carry any weight when I say that, as far as the GLC is concerned, parts V and VI of the Bill will not appear in the same form in Committee. I understand that we are now debating the Second Reading, and that the provisions will have to be withdrawn in Committee. However, I have given all the assurances that I can give. Instructions 1 and 4 are not as comprehensive as the assurances that I have given. Several Hon. Members rose —

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that we need any more points of order. I hope that the position has been clarified. We should now proceed with the debate.

Mr. Greenway: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The situation is not as I had thought. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is not saying that the promoters have agreed that parts V and VI are to be wiped out altogether.

Mr. Banks: That is exactly what I said.

Mr. Mikardo: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not understand the difficulty. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has made it clear that he is willing to accept instruction 4. That being so, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) has been abusing the procedures of the House and wasting his own time. He has made a long and passionate speech against the provision that is to disappear. The position is clear. Instruction 4 is to be accepted, so there is no point in talking about the contents of parts V and VI.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With his long experience, the hon. Gentleman will know that this is not the first time that we have debated matters for some hours after the promoters had made their position clear. There is nothing that I can do to pre-empt the debate. We had better get on with it.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you clarify the procedure? I accept that we are debating Second Reading and the two instructions. I understand that we have first to take a decision on Second Reading and then there has to be time left before 10 o'clock—the end of the appointed period—for a debate, if necessary, and a decision, if one is required, on one or more of the instructions.
I understand that that does not apply to the whole of part VI because instruction 4 relates to only one of the clauses in part VI. It also includes the schedule. More importantly, because the promoter has said what he is happy to accept, and the view of the House on that is now clear, the

procedural advice that we have to take is that after giving the Bill a Second Reading we should move and pass instruction 4 but we cannot move both instruction 1 and instruction 4. If we move and pass instruction 1, instruction 4 will fall and the intention of the House, which the promoter has accepted, cannot be carried out.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I am grateful to him for helping me on that. The only thing that I need to emphasise is that this debate cannot continue beyond 10 o'clock. If the House wishes to come to a decision on Second Reading and on an instruction, it has to be completed before 10 o'clock.

Mr. Mikardo: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House is grateful for your ruling, but does that not mean that if, say, by 9·30 the debate on Second Reading has not been concluded you would be willing to consider a motion to close the debate to permit instruction 4 to be moved and carried? I doubt whether there would be much debate on it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Chair is never prepared to rule on hypothetical questions. I think that I am getting the sense of the House and I shall keep a close watch on the situation, but I cannot commit the Chair at this stage.

Mr. Bruinvels: I find it very confusing having to follow so many points of order. I was under the impression that we were debating Second Reading and I thought that I was in order in putting forward the views of the National Market Traders Federation, and traders from Leicester. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg), who is unable to be present tonight, wishes to support the instruction, and the views expressed by my hon. Friends and me.
I wanted to be constructive. I felt that the House was partly reassured by some of the announcements and signs from the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). However, until he can withdraw part V, we are still on Second Reading, so I feel that I must proceed with my line of argument.
I wish to highlight the point that the National Market Traders Federation was not trying to be disruptive to the Bill. It had accepted other parts of the Bill, but is trying to find common ground for agreement on further amendments so that it can withdraw opposition to the Bill on the specific points that I have itemised. I tabled an instruction that has not been called, so I feel that I am entitled to make my views known.
I make it clear that the National Market Traders Federation is grateful for some of the concessions that it has been given through negotiation, and I know that the London Boroughs Association has been trying to help me, as has the GLC administrative law and parliamentary branch, which, in an important letter that I received only a few days ago, made it clear that it is consulting representatives of the London boroughs, on whose behalf the GLC is promoting the Bill's provisions about street trading. This letter comes from the head of that unit. It is clear that the GLC is acting on behalf of street traders.
Assuming that parts V and VI are withdrawn, the street traders will be happy to go on trading. They will feel that there is less bureaucracy around them. They simply want to get on with earning a decent living. They already have


enough difficulties filling in tax and VAT returns. Recently they told me that they considered part V was ill-conceived and unnecessary.
I look forward to seeing the hon. Member for Newham, North-West withdraw part V, subject to the approval of the House. The National Market Traders Federation wants to go on trading and wants the shopping public not to be intimidated. I look forward to the market traders getting on with doing a job and encouraging and helping the country to get good value for purchases made in street markets all over the country.

Mr. Murphy: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put, but MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. Clive Soley: I do not intend to spend much time on the speech made by the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels). However, if I were a member of the National Market Traders Federation, I would pay him not to represent me, and I should do so for two reasons. First, he has no understanding of the small business men's position. He talked about the Conservative party being their representative but seemed unaware that the bankruptcies and receiverships among small businesses are greater than ever before — between 10,000 and 15,000 a year on the latest figures.
More important, the hon. Member said that at one time people in his area threw fruit at miners. Much as I understand the feelings behind the strike, and both sides of it, the hon. Member must know that it is an offence in law to throw objects, whether bricks, fruit, vegetables or anything else. If anybody had been caught doing that, they would have been taken to court and charged with assault. The hon. Gentleman said that he did not blame them for doing that. In other words, he said that he is willing to support people who break the law when they do it on his behalf. It is an incredible position when somebody who claims to be a supporter of law and order is one of those who undermines it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has moved the Bill in an exceptionally co-operative and flexible way. I do not know any hon. Member who has presented such a technical Bill so well. This is particularly so as my hon. Friend, although he is a GLC member, is not responsible for all of the Bill, because many parts of it came from local authorities.
My hon. Friend has accepted instructions 1 and 4. He has withdrawn part of the Bill and will submit new clauses in Committee, and that is sensible. There have been major representations from outside the House today. These have come from street traders who are anxious about certain parts of the Bill. That anxiety was well-known in advance. I must be one of the few hon. Members representing a London constituency who, although he has many street traders in his area, has been visited by only one today. He was extremely helpful and filled me in on some of his concerns. I was able to give him assurances that we might be able to meet those in Committee.
Let us make it clear how we got ourselves into this situation. This part of the Bill, which my hon. Friend has now withdrawn, is largely the responsibility of the London Boroughs Association and Westminster city council—two Conservative-controlled bodies.
Let me read to hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), a letter from the London Boroughs Association, dated 13 May 1985:
As far as the established markets are concerned, we would hope that on reflection traders would endorse what we are trying to do. Suggestions that there has not been adequate consultation cannot be sustained:
I know that this will go on the record and I hope that people outside the House will take it up because many in the traders groups feel strongly about it. The letter continues:
we wrote to the Federations representing street traders as long ago as June 1983, and sent them a copy of the working party report which led to these proposals. Unfortunately we received no reply on that occasion, nor when we wrote again 12 months later, well before the Bill was deposited.
In other words, Westminster city council and the LBA are blaming the street traders for not having co-operated.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West pointed out correctly, it was the GLC that had to step in to try to clear up the mess. What he has done today in a flexible and co-operative manner is to get the Conservative party off the hook. If I were to blame him for anything, it would be only for that.
I wish the hon. Member for Ealing, North would vote against this. If he did, I would have notices about it all round Soho. Every householder in Soho would be writing to me about the sex shops because they would all get letters telling them exactly what the hon. Member for Ealing, North said. The hon. Member is never a man to let the facts get in the way of his prejudices. He is the Rentaquote of the Ealing Gazette. That is what his participation in the debate is about. He is desperate to get into the Ealing Gazette. It does not come into my area and I do not read it. If the hon. Member is so desperate to get into the Ealing Gazette, he must be very worried. I suspect that he will be playing centre forward next, or perhaps outside left or outside right, or anything else that will get him out of the political mess that he has got himself into on this Bill.

Mr. Bendall: I have been involved with the street traders for six or eight months in regard to the Bill. It is only recently that meetings have taken place, yet I have been exchanging correspondence with all the people concerned over six months. Why does it take so long for consultation?

Mr. Soley: That is exactly my point. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Will he take the matter up with his Conservative colleagues in the London Boroughs Association and Westminster city council? Or is he trying to tell me that the LBA and Westminster city council are not Conservative-controlled? I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman if he wants to come back again.

Mr. Bendall: I am trying to tell the hon. Gentleman that this is a Bill to do with the powers of the GLC. There have been efforts to have consultations with the GLC for six months, but they have happened only recently.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: The hon. Member is drowning.

Mr. Soley: He is not just drowning; he has drowned. He has probably got the letter from the LBA before him. He should read the penultimate paragraph. The only people who could be blamed, apart from the LBA and Westminster city council, are the very people that Westminster city council and the LBA are blaming—the


street traders. I do not take that view. If the hon. Gentleman does, he had better make that clear to the House.
We must consider who will deal with Bills like this if the Government go on with the abolition of the GLC. In a couple of years, if something like this is needed, there will be Bills from every local authority in London. It is nonsense. I have sympathy for the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw). He served on the abolition Committee, as I did. It was clear then that the last thing the Home Office wanted was the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan counties, but the Home Office has been dropped in it by the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Lord Whitelaw spelt out clearly that the Home Office did not want to take on questions in relation to the police and the fire brigade. Now we have another example, illustrated by the Minister's intervention in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member of Newham, North-West, of the Home Office not wanting to get involved in appeals. I can understand that. In his contribution the Minister must tell the House that some sort of appeal system will be supported by the Government and that it is in a form acceptable to the various groups involved. I do not want to give an absolute commitment but I would be concerned about it going through the court system. I am not sure if the court is the right way to deal with it at the first stage. It may be, but I would need more convincing about it. On the other hand, if the Home Office is saying that it will not be involved and that it does not want the courts to be involved, the Minister must tell us who should be responsible. We would welcome clarification on that from the Minister.
If there is not an appeals system and if the GLC is abolished, the danger is that there will be different regulations in each area. Therefore, a trader who moves from one area to another will have to adapt to different regulations. Only the other week the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, on Report on the Sexual Offences Bill, told me at great length why it was impossible to have different regulations in one local authority from another to deal with kerb crawling. If the Minister believes that each area must have different regulations, he should have a word with his hon. Friend to find out who is making the policy in the Home Office, and whether there is to be one policy or many contradictory policies.
I support the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) that, rather than dealing with offenders by using the "serious arrestable offence" definition, it would be more appropriate to have a schedule of offences listed to the Bill. I suspect that the Minister may agree with me about that. A definition of "serious arrestable offence" may omit minor offences, which would not come under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 definition but which could be serious for street trading—for example, dishonesty. A schedule attached to the Bill may be the best way of dealing with that. I am open to arguments, and we shall discuss the matter in Committee, but I should welcome the Minister's views on that.
There has been considerable feeling about the Bill, not merely because of the street traders' views on it, but because of the sex shops in Soho. Most people understand the difficulty facing residents there. I received many letters about it recently when people suddenly discovered that I

was speaking in this debate. It is a matter of considerable anxiety and clearly it is difficult to legislate for. As I have said on previous occasions, there is a case for giving local authorities byelaw powers to deal with particular problems in their area, especially those relating to sexual offences. As with the legislation on kerb crawling and with activities connected with prostitution, there is much to be said for having local byelaws to deal with the problem rather than introducing national legislation which affects all areas, regardless of whether there is a problem. I do not believe in spreading the imprint of the law widely, if it is possible to avoid it.
We welcome the Bill. At the end of the day everybody will support it, even the hon. Member for Ealing, North, who has fled the Chamber, simply because there are too many good aspects of it to lose. Most, if not all, Conservative councils in London and the Conservative London Boroughs Association want it. The Greater London council rightly adopted the Bill because they felt that it was right for London as a whole, and wanted to make some amendments. Because my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West handled the matter so well, the Bill will pass through Committee, drastically amended, but better because of it. For that reason the House owes a debt to my hon. Friend.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Giles Shaw): I shall briefly speak on behalf of the Government. It is only right and proper that I offer my congratulations to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), both on the present position which he holds for a short but undoubtedly distinguished time, and on the way in which he moved the Bill. It is not a difficult measure to move, especially if one does not have direct responsibility for it. He handled the brief that he was given with great dexterity and care.
The debate has been peculiarly difficult because there have been many exchanges and many suggestions of change. It is right for me to concentrate on two or three issues, on which the Government wish to comment. The Bill is a general miscellaneous Bill and, like previous general powers Bills, contains a package of proposals. Some of its provisions have clearly excited some comment, and many of them have excited support. The hon. Gentleman and colleagues have generally agreed that contentious issues should be withdrawn and the provisions re-examined.
Since the introduction of the Bill, Departments with an interest have pointed out to the promoters the points to which the Government object in principle. I shall deal with them briefly. Departments have also made several suggestions as to how the drafting might be improved, which are being considered by the promoters. However, taking the Bill as a whole, our objections to it are not so great as to deny it a Second Reading. It is only right that the arguments for and against some clauses should be considered in Committee. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West allowed that to happen by saying that parts V and VI would be withdrawn. No doubt there will be discussion in Committee about what might replace them, if that is the intention of the promoters.
I might add in parentheses that instruction 4 does not specify action in relation to part VI.

Mr. Simon Hughes: indicated dissent.

Mr. Shaw: That is wrong. It is important that, whatever decision the House makes tonight, it must reflect the agreement reached earlier.
I shall deal only with the provisions on which the Government have reservations and which have already featured in the debate. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) chided me about appeal procedures. The problem is that, in part, the Bill is a residuum of other legislation. In the Local Government Act 1982, appellate procedures were not fully described, and it is not easy for us to decide suddenly on the Floor of the House that there should be an appellate procedure while none exists in the parent legislation.
I intervened earlier in relation to section 48 of the 1982 Act, which deals with street cleansing. It contained the odd provision that the Home Secretary was in the appellate position. I am not sure why that was the case, but it was in the Act. I said that the Government do not wish to continue to have that function, and the Bill removes it. Therefore, I do not object to that clause. However, it will be for the Committee to decide how broadly the appeal procedures should be applied. Clause 45(1) (c) states that the magistrates court is a route for licence conditions. That might be a suitable route for appellate procedures under other clauses. However, I must tell the hon. Member for Hammersmith that that would depend upon whether the clause in question is derived from parent legislation which allowed appellate procedures. That is a technical matter that can be discussed fully in Committee. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that the appellate procedure could be important in garnering general approval for the Bill. Obviously, I do not object in principle to appellate procedures.
The Government have some specific comments to make on clause 11, which will widen the definition of a sex shop in schedule 3. My hon. Friends the Members for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) and for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) stressed the improvements that they believed the clause would provide. Among other things, it seeks to bring what are described as "sex encounter establishments" within the controls set out in schedule 3 of the Local Government Act 1982. I appreciate the anxiety that lies behind the proposal, but I must remind the House that, only three years ago, Parliament considered and rejected a similar proposal during the passage of that Act, on the basis that it might amount to the licensing of premises which were merely fronts for prostitution. However, the Government do not object to the principle of that part of the clause if it can be proved that there is a real and pressing need for sex encounter establishments to be brought within the licensing system and therefore made the subject of regulation. With that in mind, my officials have been in touch with the promoters of the Bill, and we hope to reach a decision on the need for the clause before the Bill goes to Committee.

Mr. Tony Banks: I am grateful for the Minister's earlier remarks. Will he confirm that the boroughs have submitted evidence to his Department to justify that clause?

Mr. Shaw: I confirm what the hon. Gentleman says. The boroughs have submitted a deposition of view to which my officials will pay close attention. I expect that we shall reach an accommodation before the Bill goes into Committee.
However, we have some reservations about the drafting of clause 11. We can deal with that, too. If we decide that the proposals in clause 11 are justified by the evidence, we shall seek to iron out in Committee, as the hon. Member for Newham, North-West would wish, the other difficulties.
Another purpose of clause 11 in relation to schedule 3 is to widen the definition of a sex shop. Schedule 3 makes provision for the licensing of sex shops and defines them broadly as
premises whose trading consists to a significant degree in the supply of sex articles.
If we adopted the provisions of clause 11, the definition of "sex shop" would be widened to cover any premises used for any business which included the supply of sex articles. Thus, even ordinary news agencies which stocked only a small number of the rather milder "girlie" magazines might be classified as sex shops. This matter ought therefore to be looked at in Committee.
Provision is made for the licensing requirement to be waived. I have little doubt that in practice London boroughs would not require ordinary news agencies to be licensed as sex shops. Nevertheless, such premises could still be so classified. I imagine that many of them would object, with good reason, to this. There is provision for boroughs to charge for considering applications for the waiving of licences.

Mr. Banks: A great gulf does not divide us. The House generally accepts that we need to be as precise as possible over the definition of a sex shop. For example, it would not be appropriate for greengrocers and general traders to stock vibrators, but that could happen. It is a possibility. One sees so many articles in shops. It is because of the difficulty involved in applying the existing provisions that the boroughs have sought to widen the definition.

Mr. Shaw: I shall not seek to follow the hon. Member for Newham, North-West, who has extensive knowledge of these devices. There are problems of definition in the application of clause 11. That is why we said to the promoters that we were not happy about the clause as it stands, but I believe that the problems can be resolved. We are ready to discuss with the promoters the nature of the problems that are involved.
We are also conscious that there are those, especially in areas such as Soho, who will seek to use any device which might enable them to circumvent the provisions of schedule 3 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. We shall want to examine whether there is a gap in the law and, if so, we shall seek a means to deal with it which draws an acceptable balance between catching those whose premises ought to be licensed and safeguarding the interests of the bona fide traders.
We have already held preliminary discussions with the promoters, but we are not yet convinced, on the basis of those discussions, that there is a gap in the law. If, however, the Bill is given a Second Reading, we shall seek to hold further discussions with the promoters to try to take the matter further before Committee.
In view of the concessions which have been made by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West on behalf of the promotors, I welcome very much his decision on part IV, which deals with amusement arcades and which he said he was prepared to withdraw. It is not a part of the Bill which the Government could support. His withdrawal has strongly influenced me in determining that the


remainder of the Bill should go forward to Committee. The hon. Member's concessions on parts V and VI have already been noted and, it would appear, have been extremely widely welcomed in all parts of the House. With those few words, I shall now be silent and will see the Bill through its Second Reading.

Mr. Simon Hughes: This debate has presented us with a few unusual opportunities. This has been the first opportunity for the House to congratulate itself upon having among its number the chairman of the Greater London council. My view, and that of many hon. Members, is that the GLC should still be in existence after his term of office. The battle over the GLC is not yet lost. There has also been an illuminating illustration of some of the bits of information that the hon. Member has acquired on his way to becoming the chairman of the GLC. Over the months and years I have seen what is on stalls in East street and other street markets, but I have never seen the combination of articles which the hon. Member for Newham, North West (Mr. Banks) asserts are available in some places in London. Perhaps funny things happen north of the river.
More importantly, today we have seen the will of the House, almost in unison, putting right legislation that should never have come forward in that form. Earlier this session, the Government introduced the Civil Aviation Bill. It was clear that there had been no consultation even with their own party. It was equally clear that no support would be forthcoming from the Opposition. The Government therefore had no choice but to withdraw the Bill—and a good thing, too.
The Bill before us today is inaptly named, because it was not instigated by the GLC, although it covers the Greater London area. It was initiated by the London Boroughs Association, which represents only some London boroughs and at most one of the inner London boroughs in which street trading is most relevant. The views presented also did not represent the views of Members of Parliament of the same party as those governing those boroughs. When asked, the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) and others expressed clear dissatisfaction and dissent. The GLC, as the county authority, was given the job of proposer.
There has been a great deal of inaccurate talk, to put it mildly, about such dialogue as took place. An assurance was given that there would be consultation with the Home Office and with the National Federation of Street Traders, but correspondence shows that that consultation did not happen at the stage at which it was promised.
Rightly, therefore, there was a strong reaction from the community of people who saw their interests and their contribution to the life of the capital threatened in an unparalleled fashion. There was intense lobbying of Parliament by street traders from many boroughs, not least —I say this jealously because it is important to my borough—those from the borough of Southwark. As we saw at the meeting in the Grand Committee Room on the Government's proposals to remove the guarantee relating to the transfer of GLC housing stock to the boroughs, people whose interests were threatened came along and made their views known. On that occasion, representatives of the ex-GLC estates in Southwark clearly outnumbered those from any other borough. I believe that the same is true on this occasion and I compare my experience with
that of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). Johnny Wallington, Secretary of the Federation of Street Traders, is himself a Southwark trader. He and other street traders have justifiably led the fight, but it should never have reached this stage.
A series of instructions were put down by Members in all parts of the House seeking a satisfactory outcome on street traders and street trading. My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) and I went for the jackpot and put down an instruction to remove part V of the Bill. We also said that clause 54 and schedule 3 had to go. In our view, it would be much better to get those provisions out of the way and then reintroduce elements that people regard as important rather than compromising with assurances which probably will not deliver the goods. To claim some small measure of historical credit in advance, I hope that when the history of the battle for the streets and street traders of London is written, the Southwark and Bermondsey and Woolwich instruction will be seen as the instruction that got street trading back on the rails where it should always have been.
I have a few important comments to make. I shall refer first to the importance of the issue, and then raise a few technical matters that I hope that the Minister and others will respond to. Inner London is desperately short of businesses, jobs and opportunities for youngsters who wish to work where they were born and brought up. One obvious way of giving a youngster a future is to enable him to go into his family's business. My constituency has lost 20 per cent. of its population in 10 years, and other constituencies will have lost similar numbers. People have moved away because the jobs just are not there. Thus, threats to the prosperity of the inner city must be resisted.
The inner city has, above all, serviced and fed this nation's capital. Borough market, which is a wholesale market, and the old Covent Garden market have produced the goods to be sold on the streets. Street trading has been part of the employment and service tradition of our capital. Some of those who came to lobby us were the third generation to be involved in street trading. Some have carried on the same stall, on the same pitch, selling the same goods for years. I think, for example, of Hodges the fish stall in the Blue in Southwark and of many stalls that are part of our essential commercial fabric. One need only go down The Lane on any Sunday morning to realise that it was the same 10 or 20 years ago. The place is packed, because people want to shop there. Indeed, that place was chosen by a television programme in order to illustrate the other day the vitality of that part of our heritage.
It is important to ensure that every job is preserved for our youngsters and their families. Before I came to the House, I was involved in running a youth club just off the Old Kent road. We tried to get an employment project going and we considered what we could do to give teenagers work. Their first choice was to run a market stall. They saw that as representing security and as something that would reward effort. They believed that if they worked hard, they would do well, and that if they did not work hard, they would not do well. They could see the relationship between input and reward.
It is important to defend ourselves from unjustified attacks that are not supported by most of the London boroughs and to try to increase opportunities for trade, particularly in food and vegetables. If there is no trade in London, people will not want to live here and if no one lives here, what is the point of having such a capital city?
At present the Government are trying to abolish the GLC. It is always necessary to have safeguards against the possibility of a local authority abusing its power. That is why appeal procedures are important. If a borough suddenly decides to de-designate a street market, it is always important that the people should be able to say that they want to challenge that. It is always important that they should be able to say, "You can't suddenly deprive us because you want to build a hypermarket or supermarket, or because you want to close the road." I should prefer the appeal to go to the county tier of government and to an elected tier.
Similarly, if a borough council turns down a planning application, I prefer the matter to go to an elected strategic planning authority. A Government Department with a Minister of the Crown should not be the responsible body. To some degree I make my next remarks mischievously, although there is an element of truth to them. When appeals go to the Home Office from boroughs such as mine, where the Tory vote may be 5 or 10 per cent., it is ludicrous that the decision should be taken by a Tory Minister. Of course, the situation could be quite the reverse in other boroughs. But the point is that it is much better for such appeals to go to an elected authority that can take into account proper views. If there is a prospect of some reincarnation of the GLC, I hope that that body rather than a Department will act as the court of appeal. That point should be borne in mind.
I do not question the integrity of those in the court system. My argument is that all that the courts do is review whether a decision was correctly arrived at. They do not allow someone to challenge the decision. If someone goes to the magistrates court for a review of an administrative decision, that person wants to ask whether the arguments were considered and whether the court can intervene. That is not what this sort of appeal system is about—the de-designation of streets, refusal of licences and so on. We must have an appeals system where the merits of the case can be heard and argued, with notice of the arguments given to the parties concerned. One thing that we do not have in our appeals system in a planning case is a provision to ensure that the appellant knows exactly what he is arguing against.
I wish to draw one parallel. Until recently the Home Office was in charge, indirectly, of the licensing of London cabs. That responsibility has now been transferred to the Department of Transport. The decision on who should hold a cabbie's licence is taken by a commissioner. I have been trying for months to find out the criteria set out in a document in the Department of Transport for someone being refused a licence. Perhaps someone has committed an offence and his licence is revoked. The return of the licence is discretionary. The livelihood of a cabbie could be lost for five years, but he will not know the criteria used in the decision to withhold his licence. It will not be good enough to have a similar provision for street trading and market stalls. People need to know the exact criteria and arguments. They need to know the conditions with which they are required to comply.

Mr. Bendall: I refer the hon. Gentleman to new clause 7 of the Transport Bill, which was passed in the House the other evening, which does alter matters.

Mr. Hughes: I was not aware of that. If it improves the position, it will be welcomed by the large number of people who serve our community in London as cab drivers.
We are left with the anomaly that the Bill has been trying to do two things — it has tried to produce a common system yet excluding the City of London, and not do what the Government have said for months they want to do, which is to allow decisions to be made by the boroughs. If Southwark wants to continue a certain practice, it should be able to pilot a Bill. It is important to start from the premise that the interests for which people have fought over the years will be upheld. The consolation for me and others who have participated tonight is that that will now be the position. The people who felt that their livelihoods were threatened know that there is no longer the threat that existed at seven o'clock this evening.
People may think that being a street trader is an easy life. If they stop to think, they will realise that it involves work out of doors in all weathers, and that is not easy. They will also realise that it is not a cheap way to operate a business. There is not a lot of space for the market stall. The trader does not obtain any business if he is not there.
I shall cite some figures that show the cost clearly. A 3 ft 6 in by 9 ft stall in The Lane in Southwark costs about £960 a year. Comparable rent for a shop in the Old Kent road at one end of The Lane—a shop that is 50 times bigger than the stall—is about £1,140 a year. Therefore, it is not cheap and it is not easy. It is not reasonable to say that the traders should be restricted as to whether someone can help them or whether they can leave the business to buy stock for the stall on a good day. There must be flexibility. Small business men are trying to run their businesses. They need to be able to do so in a way that allows their businesses to develop as they wish. Their investment brings their rewards. That is as it should be and why the markets are relatively healthy. After tonight, we shall have a Bill that improves drainage facilities, regulates sex establishments and ensures that the environment in central London is improved. We shall also have a Bill which no longer threatens some people's proper interests. They will be assured that their case has been vindicated. I hope that the House welcomes that on behalf of hundreds of such people, their families and successive generations.
Hon. Members might like to take with them as a postscript the thought that the stall at the entrance to Westminster tube station has been there since 1923. It is run by one of my constituents and has served hon. Members well. It would have been folly to abolish the right to run such stalls and the right to inherit them.

Mr. John Fraser: I represent a good many stallholders in Brixton market and tabled instruction 1, which I shall later ask leave to withdraw.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) will take account of some of my constituents' worries because, although parts V and VI are to be withdrawn, I understand that other provisions will be put forward.
I have consulted my local authority — Lambeth — which has been extremely helpful and made constructive suggestions. It has been much more helpful than the London Boroughs Association and the solicitor to Westminster city council, who wrote to me in not very


helpful terms about a compromise about rights of succession. I want existing rights of succession to be preserved. They are not terribly generous and exist only if somebody is in business on a stall when he dies, makes a nomination in favour of a relative before death and that option is taken up within 10 days of death. It is not a wide-ranging power, but it should be preserved in the Bill, in whatever form it reappears.
One of the limbs of instruction 1 is the advertising of vacancies for stalls. Lambeth borough council is anxious that ethnic minorities should have the proper right to engage in market trading. The present pattern of trading could conceivably exclude people who have, or whose parents have, come relatively recently. West Indians in Brixton and Asians in other parts of London could be prevented from getting into a market if the network is closed. The advertising of available market licences is much the fairest way in which to proceed and it is preferable to the discretionary power to keep a waiting list.
As the Bill stands, by 31 December 1986, a local authority will have a chance to de-designate a street as a trading street. That means that streets could be de-designated in the next couple of years and there could be no appeal against the decision. That would be wrong.
Clause 43(1) provides the power to revoke certain licences on the grounds, for example, that the street is overcrowded or that the local authority has prohibited trade in a certain class of goods. Such revocations are not subject to appeal.
That is wrong. It would be too easy for a local authority to say that a street was overcrowded and then be able to pick and choose between one trader and another. There must be a right of appeal against any such decision, although I agree that some of these decisions need not be examined in magistrates courts. They involve decisions about social policy and are amenable to be decided by the Home Office or Department of the Environment under the appeals system that now exists on planning matters. I insist on behalf of my traders, however, that rights of appeal are preserved in respect of all revocations of licences and not just on certain grounds.
Proposals exist in the Bill for disqualifying a market trader on the grounds that he has committed an offence of for "any other reason." I was not convinced by a letter that I received from the secretary of the LBA, who wrote to say:
unsuitability to hold a licence due to conviction or any other reason is well precedented in all licensing legislation during recent years.
That is not true. I was concerned, as Minister of State for Consumer Affairs, with licensing under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the Estates Agents Act 1979. We used a formula which is much more appropriate for the grounds on which a person can lose a consumer credit licence, which might be a much more serious matter than losing a market trading licence.
I refer my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West to section 25 of the Consumer Credit Act, which seems to contain the right formula. It says that a person may lose his consumer credit licence if he commits
any offence involving fraud or other dishonesty, or violence"—
that seems acceptable as a precedent—or if he
contravened any provision under this Act"—
relating to matters special to consumer credit—or if he

practised discrimination on grounds of sex, colour, race or ethnic or national origins in, or in connection with, the carrying on of any business"—
and finally—if he
engaged in … practices appearing to the Director General of Fair Trading to be deceitful or oppressive, or otherwise unfair or improper".
That definition of an offence or conduct enabling a person's licence to be taken away is sufficiently narrow and relevant to be incorporated in street trading legislation, instead of the broad disqualification in the Bill as drafted in relation to "any offence" and "any reason."
Another matter in the Bill which causes traders concern is the ability of the local authority to ban or debar traders from trading in a particular product in a particular licensed street. Some traders fear that a big commercial interest which wants to develop a shop or trade in a specific item might try to influence the local authority to debar street traders from trading in that product. That would be anticompetitive—which should influence the Minister—and it worries me and market traders. Assurances should be built into the Bill, when redrafted, to ensure that such anticompetitive practice cannot take place.
Some people believe that market trading is an easy occupation. It is not. It is often carried on for a lifetime. Indeed, among the many people who have come to lobby me today have been traders of 20, 30 and 40 years' standing.

Mr. Chris Smith: Members of a trader's family will often trade in a street market for more than a lifetime, carrying on over successive generations. Many families in my constituency have traded in the same street market—indeed, in the same location in that market—for up to 120 years That reinforces the point that my hon. Friend has been making about next-of-kin provisions.

Mr. Fraser: My hon. Friend is right, and the trade over the generations builds up a tradition of quality, honesty and accessibility. The public know that these traders are not here one day and gone the next. They are trading from one generation to the next — sometimes, as my hon. Friend points out, for over a century. They pay expensive fees and are subject to the sort of restrictions which do not apply to most traders who operate from shops.
One must recognise the great discipline that already exists among market traders, and the responsibility that they have to show. There are restrictions that are not shared by many other people in commerce.
I am not against a recasting of the Bill that preserves the rights of appeal and of succession, provides for the advertising of pitches and ensures that traders are given a reasonable deal, providing the right balance between the long-standing interests of market traders and those of the community. At the moment the Bill is not drafted in the right way. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West has dealt with the matter so constructively, and has given us the chance of redrafting in Committee.

Mr. Bendall: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put, but MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. Tony Banks: I shall say a few words to sum up, and then no doubt we can move to a speedy conclusion.
The general debate has been good and interesting. One would not have thought that on a Bill termed the Greater London Council (General Powers) Bill, we would have so much live excitement. We have seen the House operating in perhaps its most effective form. There has been a genuine debate, which has allowed hon. Members to put the various points that have been expressed to them by their constituents. We are now reaching a stage where honour is satisfied on all sides.
A general powers Bill is perhaps something that hon. Members do not fully understand. The GLC puts the Bill before the House but the provisions within it are given to the GLC by the London boroughs through the London Boroughs Association. My council assumes, initially anyway, that the boroughs have done their job properly. Having heard the comments made this evening, I believe that it is clear that the London Boroughs Association has not done its job in the efficient way in which it should. That bodes ill if Lady Shirley Porter gets her hands on the powers that she will have if the GLC is abolished.
Let me say, so that no one misunderstands, that the GLC received the various provisions under part V. The council had no option but to put them forward. Since the Bill was published, it has been moving might and main to try to fill in the serious gaps that the Bill presented. Clearly, much more time is needed. Therefore, it is more sensible and seems to answer the points of not only hon. Members but the market traders, that on behalf of the promoters I should accept instruction 4, which deletes part V. One takes into account all the points that have been made by my hon. Friends the Members for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) and for Peckham (Ms. Harman), who were assiduous in their pressures upon me, saying just how deformed the Bill was. Therefore, I am delighted—

Mr. William Cash: In view of the words that the hon. Gentleman used in the earlier part of the proceedings, when he referred to part V, will the assurance that he has just given be translated into an undertaking that the GLC will agree to exclude part V by amending the Bill?

Mr. Banks: With all due respect, the hon. Gentleman is seeking to slow things up. He has not been in attendance throughout the whole debate. He must know the correct procedures. I trust that we shall now give the Bill a Second Reading without a vote. I have said that we shall accept instruction 4, which should be moved formally. That will mean that the House has given an instruction to the Committee, not the hon. Member promoting the Bill. I suggest that the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) brush up on his procedure. If he stayed a little longer he might understand the matter more fully.
We have had a very interesting debate.

Mr. Fraser: I shall not move instruction No. 1. There will be some redrafting, and my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has given me an assurance that the rights of succession will be protected in that redrafting.

Mr. Banks: Absolutely. I give a categorical assurance to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) so that he can assure his constituents. In my borough of Newham not only is there a right of succession within the

immediate family but the council has transferred the licence to others outside the family when it is clear that the concern has been part and parcel of the business. The right can be extended a little further.

Mr. Greville Janner: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his concessions. They will mean a great deal to traders outside London who were afraid that, if the measures had been introduced for London, they would have spread. We have received many representations from traders on that point.

Mr. Banks: My hon. and learned Friend assiduously attends to the interests of his constituency. He serves Leicester well by his presence in the House. I am happy to have that placed on the record.
The Minister made a number of points on clause 11. On the interpretation of a sex shop, I had the impression that, at a later stage, as commerce develops, one might go to a street corner trader and ask for two pounds of King Edwards and—to use the immortal words of the barber —"a little something for the weekend, sir". I am sure that we can reach agreement on clause 11 as well.
With the various assurances which have been given and excepting instruction 4—I trust that it will be moved formally—I hope that the House will give the Bill with its important provisions a Second Reading without a Division.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed

Ordered,

That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to leave out Part V, clause 54 and Schedule 2.—[Mr. Simon Hughes.]

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS

Ordered,
That Standing Order No. 6 (Arrangement of public business) be amended as follows:
Line 4, leave out paragraph (2) and insert:
'(2) Twenty days shall be allotted in each session for proceedings on opposition business, seventeen of which shall be at the disposal of the Leader of the Opposition and three of which shall be at the disposal of the Leader of the second largest opposition party; and matters selected on those days shall have precedence over government business provided that—

(a) two Friday sittings shall be deemed equivalent to a single sitting on any other day,
(b) on any day other than a Friday, not more than two of the days at the disposal of the Leader of the Opposition may be taken in the form of four half days, and one of the days at the disposal of the Leader of the second largest opposition party may be taken in the form of two half days; and
(c) on any such half day proceedings under this paragraph shall either—


(i) lapse at seven o'clock if not previously concluded, or
(ii) be set down for consideration at seven o'clock and, except on days on which private business has been set down for consideration under the provisions of paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking private business), shall be entered upon at that time:
Provided that on days on which business stands over until seven o'clock under the provisions of Standing Order No. 10 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) proceedings under this sub-paragraph shall not be entered upon until such business has been disposed of, and may then be proceeded with for three hours, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).


(2A) For the purposes of this order "the second largest opposition party" shall be that party, of those not represented in Her Majesty's Government, which has the second largest number of Members elected to the House as members of that party.'; and
That Standing Order No. 33 (Questions on amendments) be amended as follows:
Line 9, leave out from first 'the' to 'Standing' in line 11, and insert 'twenty days allotted under paragraph (2) of'.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

Old Trafford Post Office

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

Mr. Tony Lloyd: The Minister has an advantage on this occasion because he is well-travelled on the route of post office closures whereas, for me, it is still a novel experience. The closure of the Old Trafford post office is worthy of the attention of the House because of the issues that it raises. It is not simply a matter of a local decision with which I disagree. It is more fundamental. This is a matter of principle on which the Government have responsibility. It is ironic that I, who on many occasions have advocated public ownership and monopoly control of certain operations, such as post office facilities, am faced with a Minister who, ideologically, would put forward a case in favour of privatisation and competition. I shall challenge the abuse of that monopoly power, and I suspect that the Minister, who probably would not wish to defend that monopoly power, will find himself saying that he does not intend to do anything about it. I hope that I may be wrong about that.
I have had a letter from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Trade and Industry. He said:
The role of government is confined to broad issues of general policy and to matters of overall financial control".
In other words, while thanking me for my correspondence about the Old Trafford post office, he was not prepared to take any interest in a local matter. Yet the process of post office closures stems from decisions made by central Government about the financing of the Post Office, and it is, in consequence, extremely frustrating to try to stave off a closure. Other hon. Members know that as well as I do. They have raised the issue both in Adjournment debates and in a half-day debate earlier in the year.
People are unhappy about the consultation process. It is difficult to make anyone admit responsibility for the decision. The chairman of the Post Office has written to me as follows:
Although the guide lines have, as you say, been set nationally, the decisions are being taken by the local managers who have detailed knowledge of the circumstances in the individual area.
Yet, in speaking to local managers, I have been made aware that they feel constrained by national guidelines that instructed them in effect to choose post offices to be closed.
I have also had a letter from the chairman of the north-west postal board, who used to be the postmaster in Manchester. It is ironic that the man who put forward Old Trafford post office for closure as postmaster then found himself, as chairman of the board, ratifying the decision to close. He said:
The main aim"—
of the closure programme—
is to reduce costs and improve productivity whilst at the same time improving the range of services available to the customer.
Improving services is an important matter. In this case however, there will be no improvement for the customers in the area.
No affected group is even remotely persuaded that the closure decision is in its own interest. The local council opposes the decision because the area around the post office already presents a number of reasons for the maintenance of that office and is also an area of potential


major development. The council points out that the Cornbrook sidings site provides 153,000 sq ft of industrial development, 25,000 sq ft for offices and a further 15 acres that are ripe for development. Fluor house, just across the road, provides 110,000 sq ft of vacant office space. Half a minute's walk away from the post office there is planning permission for 45,000 sq ft of offices and 25,000 sq ft of supermarket space. Three minutes' walk down the road, the North-Western Electricity Board plans to site its headquarters in the near future. That will be 100,000 sq ft of office space. There is also to be a major hotel development.
There are, therefore, plans for massive development in the area, which is designated as a development area within the county structure plan and the district plans. The local authority does not understand the decision.
The chairman of the Post Office has said:
I can promise you that the Head Postmaster will keep an eye on the post office services in the area and should any future redevelopment justify additional facilities, these will be provided.
That is an empty promise. The decision to open a post office is massively more difficult than the decision simply to continue to operate an existing service. Clearly, to close the post office would be a very negative step. Quite apart from future developments, there are cogent reasons, even now, why the post office should not be closed.
I have already said that there are interest groups, one of which is opposed to closure.
It will be no surprise to the Minister to find that the Union of Communication Workers, on behalf of the work force, is opposed to the decision to close.

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr Neubert.]

Mr. Lloyd: It is a great privilege for me to be able to extend the Adjournment debate. I have not previously experienced this, and I thank my colleagues from London for their early departure, which has allowed this matter of national importance to be more fully debated.
The Post Office has given a promise that there will be no compulsory redundancies, but jobs will simply disappear. If the case that those jobs will disappear because the post office is unproductive or socially unnecessary could be made, we might accept the closure as being reasonable. However, I shall demonstrate that the loss of those jobs is not only socially undesirable but is not even economically soundly based. Those jobs will be lost with no rationale, and there will be even less employment for the people in my constituency.
The major users of the post office are business people and claimants. I have had many letters from local people involved, for example the Manchester chamber of commerce. Its Trafford branch is extremely concerned about this decision and has promised to do everything that it can, even at this late stage, to help reverse the decision. I had a letter from a company, P. F. Jones, Diesel Services Ltd. The managing director says:
We are a small limited Company who make use of the Post Office at Talbot Road … almost every day, when we visit the bank of Williams &amp; Glyn's next door … I also collect a pension for my mother-in-law … I always have to queue along with many other pensioners".

That is not a sign of a post office that is of no value or that has no demand. The signs are to the opposite, that the post office is providing a valuable service to this business and to the local community. The managing director says that the closure of the post office would be a great inconvenience for that company.
The chairman of the Post Office has said to me that, given that the post office
is used far more by businesses than by residential customers and that the residential areas which currently use it are close to the alternatives, I do that think there will be undue hardship to customers.
There is no consideration of the needs of the local business community. That is remarkable, because the area is ripe for commercial development and has a significant proportion of local traders already.
There is a local shopping parade in the area and the traders there are concerned about their future. There is a phenomenon that every hon. Member present on these packed Benches will recognise, which is that once a deterioration sets into a shopping area and facilities begin to go, a vicious circle develops. If the post office is not there, pensioners do not go there on pension day, so they do not shop there. The local shops find business more difficult and become marginal businesses. Some close and the process goes on. There is no longer an attraction for local customers. Therefore, the local businesses are extremely concerned about the closure of this post office.
Naturally, there is also concern about the loss of services when the post office closes. Business people are anxious that the case for the continuation of the post office is made. The alternative of sending them to Salford, Chorlton or Stretford post offices is misguided because not only are those offices a long way away, but they are along peculiar traffic routes. One would not send the office junior on such a route with the ordinary day's mail unless that is forced on one because of the closure.
About a third of the Post Office's business comes through the payment of DHSS pensions, unemployment, supplementary and child benefits. It has admitted that some 700 pensioners still collect their pensions at this post office and that nearly 300 people claim their allowances there. I concede that those numbers are not as great as may go to other post offices. Nevertheless that is quite a large number of pensioners.
The chairman of the Post Office said that local managers have detailed knowledge about the circumstances of individual areas. According to that detailed knowledge, Old Trafford post office is within half a mile of an alternative post office, the terrain is flat and public transport services are good. What may seem to be the case when one looks at a map and takes the distance that the proverbial crow would fly, may not be the same when one considers what happens on the ground. I know the area extremely well. It is ridiculous to say that there are easy communications to the two post offices that have been forwarded as alternatives.
Hullard Mall post office, which is the closest to Old Trafford, is almost unknown because it is in a party of my constituency which is not on anyone's travel pattern. It is not a recognised place for people to go to. Although there is a bus service, no one would dream of going there to shop or for any other purpose. Therefore, to force people to go to that post office would mean that they would make the journey for only one purpose—to collect their benefits.
The Post Office claims that the route to Ayres road post office is easier, but that is not true. The crow might be able to fly there in a straight line but one could not walk through the streets in a straight line because of the pattern of housing development. Therefore, to use that post office as an alternative is not straightforward.
There will be immeasurable social loss if Old Trafford post office is closed. It would cause difficulties to pensioners if they had to walk another 1,000 yards or more, as the crow flies. One of my constituents, Mrs. Lathwood, wrote to me as follows:
The post office at Old Trafford is a vital service and it is convenient after drawing one's pension to catch a bus to the Stretford Arndale Centre or one into Manchester.
She is right. The post office is convenient for the people because of its location. It will be massively inconvenient if the people have to use the alternative post office because they are not on routes or in shopping areas that are well defined. Therefore, the closure of Old Trafford post office would cause great social disruption.
On several occasions the Minister has heard cogent social reasons against the closure of post offices. I know that there is a need to reconcile the social arguments with technical and economic efficiency. I was staggered at the reply from the Post Office to my specific question about whether Old Trafford post office was making a loss. I must thank the chairman of the Post Office for his unequivocal answer. He said:
You asked me whether the Old Trafford Office makes a loss. It does not.
This post office is not to be closed because it is an economic failure; it is to be closed despite being an economic success. Although on commercial grounds it should be kept open, the Post Office says that it will close it. Because the Post Office is a monopoly 99 per cent. of the customers of Old Trafford post office will go to other offices to draw their pensions, to buy stamps and to make various transactions. The Post Office will not lose income, but the proposed closure has all the hallmarks of the most gross abuse of the Post Office's monopoly power that would be written about in economic textbooks as read by Government Ministers or rejected by Opposition Members.
It is an abuse of the Post Office's power. If competition existed, someone would take over and run that post office. Indeed, a sub-post master of a post office in the area approached the Post Office with a view to taking over this Crown office, but he was told that he could not. The Post Office is not prepared to allow a successful post office to continue to exist under any circumstances. That is a diabolical abuse, which is why the matter is sufficiently serious to draw it to the attention of the House.
On previous occasions the Minister said that he did not have the power to intervene. However, section 60 of the British Telecommunications Act 1981 and section 11(2) of the Post Office Act 1969 give the Secretary of State power to act in these circumstances. I urge the Minister to act, because there is a general Government responsibility in that the closure programme stems from their action and, more importantly, because the decision to close the local office which, although regrettable locally is part of a great national plan, runs counter to the Government's logic and to the Post Office's obligations. It is an abuse of its power to trade. The Minister should assure the House that the

matter will be examined, the abuse will be checked, and the Post Office will be asked to reconsider this and other closures.

The Minister for Information Technology (Mr. Geoffrey Pattie): I well understand the anxiety of the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) that the Old Trafford post office should not close, and I acknowledge his efforts to persuade the Post Office otherwise. However, he will appreciate that as a commercial organisation it is essential for the Post Office to find ways of improving its efficiency and thereby safeguarding the future of the entire network, although at times the process may result in a disappointing decision for those who use a particular post office that is to be closed.
The hon. Gentleman explained why he believed that the decision to close Old Trafford post office was wrong and why it should be reversed. He will not be surprised to hear that I am not in a position to comment on the circumstances of the case or to assess the Post Office's decision. Indeed, it would be wholly wrong for me to do so. I realise that that is not the reaction for which the hon. Gentleman wished, but it will not surprise him.
The hon. Gentleman wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in October 1984, following correspondence with the chairman of the Post Office about this and another closure in his constituency, requesting that the Post Office be encouraged to review its decision. My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary said in his reply that he could not comment, because the matter was for the Post Office. He was not being obstructive or unhelpful—the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that — but following the clear and persistent policy of the Government and their predecessors on such operational questions, which are matters for the Post Office, not for the Government.

Mr. Lloyd: I was not wishing to suggest that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary was being obstructive. I understand why that is the normal response. I do not want the Minister or the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to think that I was trying to be personally insulting. However, I query the way in which the Government approached this decision, considering the overtones of monopoly abuse.

Mr. Pattie: My noble Friend will be grateful for that, although neither he nor I thought that there was any question of the hon. Gentleman taking that position.
It should be clearly understood that the Post Office is responsible for running the counters network and that decisions about individual post offices are operational ones for the Post Office, not for the Government. That is in accordance with the clear distinction, of which the hon. Gentleman is aware, between the respective roles of the Government and the Post Office Board.
Since the Post Office was established in 1969 as a public corporation with its own board, the policy of successive Governments embodied in the relevant legislation has been that decisions concerning the day-to-day management of business are the responsibility of the board. The role of the Government is confined to broad issues of general policy and matters of overall financial control. Of course, no post office closure is popular, because it will inevitably mean some inconvenience to people who must travel further to the nearest alternative


post office, as those right hon. and hon. Members whose constituencies are affected by post office closures will appreciate. There is no constituency in the country that has not suffered a closure, and my constituency is no exception.
It is understandable that the average post office customer's primary interest is in the post office which he or she is used to visiting, and he or she will be concerned if it is decided to close that office. However, the Government and the Post Office Board are required to take a wider view. As to the network of post offices, the Government's interests and responsibilities relate to the overall network, and the Government consider the Post Office's proposals for the urban network in that context. We have frequently stated our recognition of the valuable role that post offices play in the economic and social life of the country. However, if the network of post offices is to continue to provide such a role in the future, it is vital that the Post Office, in running the network, should seek ways of improving its efficiency and effectiveness and maintaining it at a satisfactory level.
Since 1945, the Post Office has had a criterion of providing post offices in town areas at intervals of not less than one mile. That is not and was never intended to be a precise and inflexible standard. It represents what the Post Office regards as a reasonable balance between the service that its customers want and the costs involved. The Post Office has not applied the criterion rigidly, but has, over the years, made decisions about post offices in the light of local circumstances.
Until the late 1960s, the network grew due to new housing development, population growth and growth in business. However, with some exceptions, closures were considered only when sub-postmasters resigned or retired and the distribution of population was not fully reflected in the provision of post offices.
A review undertaken by the Post Office in 1983 revealed an excess of about 2,000 offices against the criterion. The review also showed that about 2,000 urban offices failed to make a financial contribution to the financial overheads of the business. The excess of offices was especially evident in the inner cities, where the population movements were strongest.
The Post Office was aware that any proposals to tackle the excess of offices were bound to be unpopular, and we should commend the fact that it did not take the easy option of doing nothing but had the courage to draw up its proposals to reduce the number of post offices in urban areas.
The Post Office informed the Government about the outcome of the review and the proposals to reduce the urban network. We were concerned to ensure that the proposals did not prejudice our commitment to the maintenance of a network adequate to enable the Post Office to fulfil its statutory duty with regard to efficiency, economy and social needs. The Post Office's proposals included its intention to consult the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, the Post Office trade unions and the Post Office Users National Council. It also confirmed that individual closure proposals would be subject to the existing code of procedure agreed with PONC in 1981, and revised in January 1984 to include Crown offices, which provides for consultation with local interests before final decisions are made to close offices.
The Government were satisfied with the overall balance that the Post Office wished to strike between the needs of those whom it served and the need for reasonable economy and efficiency. The proposals were consistent with its statutory duty. But that, I repeat, is the extent of our involvement. We are not involved in decisions to close offices, nor are we involved in the process of prior consultation. There have been some complaints about the operation of the consultation process. The hon. Member did not go as far as couching his comments in a way that I would describe as a complaint, but he mentioned the consultation process. I must tell him that, in more than 10 per cent. of cases, the Post Office has withdrawn proposals to close offices following local consultation.
To my mind, that is hardly evidence, as has been suggested by some hon. Members—although not by the hon. Gentleman — that the Post Office's approach is blinkered or that it merely goes through the motions, with the result already a foregone conclusion.
On the contrary, it suggests to me that the Post Office takes the process very seriously. This impression is borne out in the number of representations that have been made to me to intervene on particular closures, where those complaining have complimented the Post Office on the way that the consultations have been handled, even if they disagreed with the final decision. It seems to me that too many of those who complain about the procedure fail to distinguish between the decisions which the Post Office makes and the way that it has to make them.
As for the hon. Gentleman's main point about monopoly power, the requirements that the Government place on the Post Office to operate an efficient network should ensure, particularly with the consultation procedures and the various consultations with the different national bodies which I have just described, that nothing that the Post Office does could possibly be described as an abuse of its monopoly position. It has gone to great lengths, both in this case and in other cases of which I am aware, to satisfy itself and local people that alternative post offices exist. I do not think that the degree of care and attention that the post office devotes to this question could possibly justify the hon. Gentleman's description of the Post Office abusing its monopoly position.
I explained during the debate on 23 January that in undertaking the review of the urban counters network and in framing the subsequent proposals for reducing the size of the network the Post Office's aim is to improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the counters network. The Post Office is well aware that closures are not popular, but it believes that the exercise is essential to secure the future of the network, to the long-term benefit of the community.
I appreciate and admire the hon. Gentleman's persistence. I do not claim that I have been able to convince him at this stage in the process, I hope that I have explained to him with sufficient clarity the Government's position vis-à-vis the Post Office Board and what the board is seeking to achieve by the various reductions it is making throughout its network while still fulfilling the requirement that we have placed upon it. The Post Office has the Government's full support in its endeavours to carry out the review and its programme.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Ten o'clock.